My Beliefs- GDR

Actually I don’t disagree with that. But on the other hand I have adjusted my model based on the little that I read about in books and magazines written for non-scientific types like myself.I also agree that my reasoning is circular because I start with my Christianity and adjust my thinking to make it fit as best I can with what I read knowing that it is my best guess, but at the same time it does give me a frame of reference to work from. No it is a way of learning like anything else. As science advances why shouldn’t theology? It may be satisfying to your ego to ridicule that beliefs of others but it isn’t actually helpful.

I just don’t see it that way. Again we objectively know that life exists. Scientifically we know that everything is caused. I realize that there are aspects of QM that appear to happen without a cause but I imagine that a scientist would say that we just don’t know what the cause is yet. There is no objective evidence for what it was the precipitated whatever the first process that resulted in life.Mankind throughout most of human history has held with the idea that there is an intelligence(s) (Tom) that is ultimately responsible for the existence of life. However humans have subjectively come to innumerable conclusions about the nature of Tom, the question of how much Tom is involved in the world now, what does it mean to me, how can I get Tom to do what I want him to, how do I please him etc.Many things were taken for granted by people such as a flat earth that was the centre of the universe. In some instances people had to adjust their views on Tom when it was proven by science that those views were wrong. As a believer in Tom I take the view that if I want to try and understand his existence and how he connects with us then likely science is the place to go. If I want to understand his nature then I look to philosophy and theology.I am not invoking Tom as a replacement for any scientific approach. We should continue to seek to learn all we can about our existence. Belief in Tom or disbelief in Tom should not have an impact on that quest for knowledge. I don’t pretend to know how the universe began. From what I have read it seems that it is quite possible that our universe has always existed as part of a greater reality. However we also know that in our little corner of this great reality we had a point where T=0, and somewhere after that a process began which resulted in life as we know it today and for that matter what it is going to become. There is some reason why the first seeds of life were planted. As it ultimately resulted in sentient creatures I think that it is more than reasonable to believe that there was a sentient answer to the question of why life exists that is able to perceive our existence in the manner that it does.Although it is quite possible that the root cause of why life exists is in some way linked to the beginning of time it doesn’t necessarily have to be. How our universe as we know came to be may be a completely unrelated to the fact that life arose on Earth or elsewhere for that matter. I have my own views but that isn’t the point. My own view is that consciousness and how our consciousness perceives time is fundamental. Certainly we should learn about it where and if we can in evolutionary terms and in studies of the brain etc. I think that in order to do that science is going to have to adapt to new ways of looking at things just as Einstein forced science to adapt their Newtonian thinking but I have no idea what that might look like. Not if Tom has always existed in a greater reality with more than one dimension of time. If you stop the turtles at the point that is objectively evidenced and say that there is no Tom then you are putting in Tom’s place something else which is not objectively evidenced, which is presumably another natural process which was caused by another natural process and it is still turtles as far as the eye can see. (Something of a mixed metaphor there I agree. ) We are both invoking something which is non-evidenced so we then go to what appears to us to be suggested by what we do know, whether it is wishful thinking or not.

The initial problem probably stems from the idea that all atheists think alike. It is hard for me to keep straight who said what in this discussion. Most of the ones on this site don’t accept the idea that even if evolution gives the appearance of design that it is evidence. My idea then was to say that if it isn’t evidence it is suggestive. You seem to be fine with calling it evidence even though the conclusion we reach is subjective. Actually I don’t agree that is the plan that people in general having been looking for. I think that if you consider our history that people have wanted a plan that had more to doing with them acquiring wealth and power in this life. I don’t think that happy is necessarily the best word either. I think even as a Christian the view is that the life on offer is one of justice and lack of suffering which doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. However, we agree that from a Tom POV a plan could be any plan including a plan to raise us up to be slaves for him in the next life. I agree that my understanding of the plan is from my Christianity but I also think that is consistent with basic human worldviews such as what we see in the Golden Rule. Essentially I don’t disagree with that. However, I think you make my point. An inifinite number of natural causes draws the same criticism that non-theists use against the idea of Tom by asking who created him and then who created him and so on. In either case it becomes turtles all the way down.Any conclusion then about the existence or non-existence of Tom has to be made without there being hard evidence. I believe as a theist that as life seems to have purpose, thatin the Golden Rule we appear to have a fundamental moral code, and as our natural processes seem to suggest a plan, the most reasonable conclusion is that life exists as a result of an intelligent planner. My understanding that in general atheists don’t believe in Tom as there is no hard evidence, and that so far all we have found are natural processes which put together suggests that Tom does not exist so why bother even considering it. If there isn’t a naturalistic cause what would then be the cause? I had never heard of him. Thanks for giving me his name. Yes, that is the general idea of how I see things. I do think that consciousness is fundamental to everything that we perceive. Actually my views on this don’t come from my Christianity or even my theism. It has come from reading books by scientists aimed at the lay man. I’ve read through such books as Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Lisa Randall, Carl Sagan and several others. I have read on line some of the stuff by Julian Barbour , Penrose and Hameroff and many others.In all of that there a numerous different ideas but it does strike me that if everything that we perceive is made up of either dimensionless or uni-dimensional particles then it all sort of goes back to E=Mc2 and everything is energy or when think only in a material sense everything is nothing. Then it seems that particles only take on the form that we perceive when they are perceived. It sure seems to me that consciousness plays the fundamental role on the existence of the universes as we perceive it.I find it interesting that Berkeley came to his conclusion long before the world of QM had been discovered.

As I understand it it doesn't need a conscious observer but it does need to be measured in some way where presumably the device doing the measuring takes the place of the conscious observer.Does that sound right to you?This is from wiki under "observer effects".

quote:

---

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.
The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques. However in quantum mechanics, which deals with very small objects, it is not possible to observe a system without changing the system, so the observer must be considered part of the system being observed.

---

AbE -- here is another wiki piece on biocentric universeHere is a quote

quote:

---

Biocentric universe (from Greek: βίος, bios, "life"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center") also known as biocentrism is a concept proposed in 2007 by American doctor of medicine Robert Lanza, a scientist in the fields of regenerative medicine and biology,[1][2][3] which sees biology as the central driving science in the universe, and an understanding of the other sciences as reliant on a deeper understanding of biology. Biocentrism states that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos life creates the universe rather than the other way around. It asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, biocentrism claims that scientists will need to place biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything.[4]
Critics have questioned whether the theory is falsifiable. Lanza has claimed that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory.

---

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Thanks NosyHere is another quote that outlines Lanza's theories. I actually have his book and read it a couple of years ago. I really think he has a point but it might tend to rub physicists the wrong way.

quote:

---

Biocentrism was first proposed in a 2007 article by Robert Lanza that appeared in The American Scholar, where the goal was to show how biology could build upon quantum physics.[6] Two years later, Lanza published a book with astronomer and author Bob Berman entitled Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, which expanded upon the ideas that Lanza wrote about in his essay for the Scholar.[7]
Biocentrism argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson.[6] He sees this as supporting the central claim that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects.[8] Lanza argues that biocentrism offers insight into several major puzzles of science, including Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment, and the fine tuning of the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe as we perceive it.[9] According to Lanza, and Bob Berman, biocentrism offers a more promising way to bring together all of physics, as scientists have been trying to do since Einstein’s unsuccessful unified field theories of eight decades ago.[10]
Seven principles form the core of biocentrism.[9] The first principle of biocentrism is based on the premise that what we observe is dependent on the observer, and says that what we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness.[11] The second and third principles state that our external and internal perceptions are intertwined and that the behavior of particles is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer, respectively.[12] The fourth principle suggests that consciousness must exist and that without it matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability.[13] The fifth principle points to the structure of the universe itself, and that the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life.[14] Finally, the sixth and seventh principles state that space and time are not objects or things, but rather tools of our animal understanding.[15] Lanza says that we carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells.[16]
Lanza has said that he intends to publish aspects of biocentrism in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

---

Well of course sonar and flight are part of life and dolphins and birds do have consciousness.The difference between a rock and life of any form including plants is obvious. The consideration of a cause for a lifeless universe can be looked at separately from the cause for life to arise from a lifeless universe. In addition I think that we can look at unconscious life such as plants and conscious life separately as well.I understand that your contention would be that through a series of natural processes conscious life evolved from a lifeless universe. On one level I’m ok with that as I’m not concerned except as a matter of interest how our world and the life in it came to be. The question of course is, are those natural processes the result of an external intelligence or did they just happen to happen.Consciousness however is in another category. You and I look and experience the same world and come to our own subjective conclusions about whether or not Tom exists; we won’t always agree as to what is moral; we won’t always agree about what is beautiful; or what tastes or smells good etc. Even though the difference is so small that we don’t notice it our perception of the passage of time is different.The point being is that regardless of how our consciousness came into existence what matters is the person that we become with it. That is the part that God cares about. I believe that Christianity gives the fullest explanation of how God relates to us and what the point of life is. Essentially what He asks of us is that we love others as we love ourselves. God is calling us to overcome our looking out for number one mentality. That seems to be a truism in that it can be found in all major world religions as well as in the secular world.In my view the far more reasonable conclusion to come to is that all life and particularly conscious life has come from an intelligent root as opposed to a non-intelligent root regardless of the process that has brought us to this point, however our consciousness that prompts us to ask the question also allows us to subjectively come to our own conclusions. I contend that that in itself is suggestive that there is more to life than mindless natural processes.Regardless of our theistic beliefs though, we should continue to research consciousness and the brain both in a search of knowledge but also a search to improve the lot of those with the various forms of mental illness. Here is a case where Paul G Allen, a secularist has established the BRAIN initiative and Francis Collins a committed Christian is working with him on the project. Toward the Final Frontier: The Human Brain

Non- life does not fly or have sonar. Consciousness i suppose is essentially self awareness although have no clue as to how non human life experiences that self awareness. Life is made up of cells whereas non-life isn’t. I do. The answer is of course philosophical and not scientific but just the fact that we search for meaning and purpose and have a curiosity about our roots, whether they be human ancestors or about Tom, to me is suggestive that as it seems to be in general a part of our nature then there is a something that is real that we are searching for. If we just emerged from lifeless elements then I wouldn’t expect that evolution would have produced this curiosity however if we emerged from lifeless elements as a result of a pre-existing conscious intelligence then there would be reason to expect that we would be curious about such things. I believe that there is. Whether it was something that required intervention at some point or whether the design was complete from the beginning I don’t know. I believe it to be the case for the reasons I have outlined numerous times in this thread.

Not without human help which once again shows that for that to happen a designer is required. I don’t know. My dogs seem to have a sense of self-awareness but who knows what goes on in their minds. How would anyone know that animals don’t have a sense of self-awareness. I have no idea. I guess when you asked for a definition of life I assumed you meant on this planet. Fine by me. They have talked about the possibility of silicon based life as opposed to carbon based which I imagine would allow for a different definition. I came up with that off the top of my head as you asked for my definition of life. Here is a fuller one. You’ll have to ask a biologist for their definition.
1/ a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2/a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
b : one or more aspects of the process of living It is an answer, which keeps getting repeated as I keep getting asked the same question. If you are looking for objective scientific evidence we both know I don’t have any which is no different than the individual who claims that there are only naturalistic causes, and that natural processes are simply the result of an infinite number of preceding natural processes. Ok then, put it the other way around. Would you expect lifeless elements without any intelligent planning to happen to come together in such a way that life is formed, evolution happens, and we wind up with at least one creature who has a curiosity about these things with the intelligence to consider and discuss it? I wouldn’t say that having an intelligent origin would necessarily cause us to have a curiosity about our origins. That is confirmed by the fact that I’m pretty sure that humans are the only life form that considers it.However the fact is that we do have a curiosity about it. Although it is far from conclusive it seems reasonable to think that if we are the result of an intelligent designer that we might as part of our consciousness carry something of the mind of that designer. If we are the result of intelligent design then we can assume that the mind of that designer is inventive and from our experience inventors in our society our successful partly because they have a curiosity about how things work, so I think we can assume the same thing about Tom.If however we are the result of nothing but mindless processes then I can see no reason to suspect any curiosity about things that have no bearing on our lives. For that matter I find that the naturalistic speculations on why altruism exists extremely unconvincing, as mindless evolution is about survival and propagation of the gene pool, but we’ve already been all over that.Bottom line though it all boils down to what we find philosophically suggestive that forms our subjective conclusions. Once again though the fact that we consider origins and still come to such a widely divergent views is to me indicative that we are the result of pre-existing intelligence. I would expect that if we are the result of mindless processes that we would all be in agreement on origins, however that is just an opinion without a firm reason for thinking that way.I imagine that you will say I’m repeating myself again but I am not trying to make a scientific argument. I am only giving the reasons that I think the way I do. None of it is conclusive. They are simply my opinions based on what I know, or at least think I know. I think I’ve covered this but I’ll try again. As far as why I think it exists I outlined right in the OP. I think it exists, partly by my own experiences that include thoughts and experiences, (nothing astounding), that I believe were not initiated by my own consciousness. I find the argument for the resurrection of Jesus much more compelling than the argument against it. I find the argument that intelligence and morality is far more likely to come from an intelligent and moral origin as opposed to a mindless one. I find that the idea that we want to leave a lasting mark in this world indicative of the idea that life does have an ultimate meaning and purpose. None of this is conclusive but in my view they are all things that are suggestive of an intelligent designer. (I hesitate to use that term as I am not in agreement with ID movement itself.)As to the mechanism I can only speculate. It is my current belief that with our 5 senses we are only able to perceive a part of our reality. I don’t know what term to use, but science talks about multi-dimensions, parallel universes, dark matter, dark energy etc. I believe that there is another universe/dimension all around us that we don’t perceive. Let’s consider the thought that vision was something that just didn’t exist and that we were creatures with only 4 senses. We would perceive the world very differently than we do and we would have no frame of reference to consider the existence of vision as another sense. Possibly if we had another sense or two we would perceive a great deal more than we do now.I am also of the opinion that is some way the world we perceive is interlocked with the world that we don’t perceive in ways that are invisible to us. It would be the interlocking of these two worlds that would be the mechanism that would allow Tom to influence this world from his. I think our sense of time and consciousness in some way overlaps the two. I realize all of this is highly speculative but it does afford me one way of considering how things might work.I think that is probably about the best I can do in trying to answer your questions.

And one side is invoking an endless series of processes that were ultimately uncaused without evidence. That too is indisputable. However read on. You aren’t invoking any entity. You are invoking an uncaused existence. In post 165 you referred to an early post by cavediver. Here was that quote:

quote:

---

Cause and Effect is a concept born of our anthropocentric experience. We drop a cup, it falls to the floor and smahes into thousands of shards. It is easy to assign the dropping as cause and the smashing as effect; it is utterly counterintuitive to reverse those roles. And so we learn to assign causes and effects, and feel that behind those things we call effects should lie something to which we can assign the term cause.
But this is only true at the macroscopic level. At the quantum level, everything is time reversible. What appears as cause can just as easily appear as effect. An electron and a positron annihilate to create two photons. Two photons pair-create an electron and positron out of the vacuum. The exact same process viewed in two opposite directions through time.

​

In fact, as we build up these interactions into something much more complex, we realise that there is no cause and effect as such, but simple consistency. One can say that the effect requires the cause, but there is just as much validity to say that the cause required the effect. Causality is simply a constraint on what parts of the interaction have to be consistent with what other parts.

---

So what would you make of that then? Would you say that evolution is the effect that initiated the cause that caused evolution for example? However, all that aside, what cavediver talks about could be another process that preceded all of the other processes that resulted in the world as we know it today, but maybe not.What cavediver is saying is consistent with other material I have read in that it appears that our universe should flow either backward or forward in time. Obviously we don’t perceive it that way. We are unable to grow younger or go back and change the past. I was conceived at a specific time and prior to that there was no evidence I existed but I was born as a result of cause. All life that we know of, at least as far as I know, had a cause. You however are suggesting that the first life was uncaused.It seems to me that gives us a paradox. If first life did not need a cause as the effect, which is the first life, is indistinguishable from the cause of that life or in essence they are one and the same. If that is true then we should be able to make the same point for all life, and for that matter all death. Yet, our life appears that we have causes for absolute beginnings and absolute ends. We are born and we die.If cavediver is correct, and as far as I know all evidence is supportive of that, then I’d say ok life doesn’t need cause. The case is then that birth is a cause for death which can then be turned around to say that death is the cause of birth. At the quantum level birth and death are pretty much interchangeable.If then life is essentially uncaused because at the quantum level particles pop in and out of existence and time flows either way isn’t that evidence that the universe that we experience is not all that there is? If death and birth are both cause and effect isn’t that an indication that death is not simply ceasing to exist?Frankly I find the whole concept indicative of the idea that this life that we know is not all that there is. If we are uncaused then the implication is that we are eternal beings, which then raises the question of why are we here. That is why I had quite talking about causality of the universe and was talking about causality of life which I see as a separate issue.

How do you know all of those things aren’t designed? Sure we can see natural processes that result in snowflakes etc but we don’t know whether or not the processes themselves are designed. It’s like looking at a car built by robotics and saying that the robotics didn’t need a designer. I am not saying that I know these things. I am saying I believe them although I contend that it is a reasonable point of view. And I did identify why I believe what I do.In the case of the murder you probably have good reason to believe that Jim committed the murder even though you don’t have the evidence to prove it in court. I’m more than happy to accept your definition but I’m afraid that your point is going over my head. To use your example we can show that Jim fired a gun but we don’t know which gun it was from. It might be the murder weapon and it might not. We know that we are curious obout our origins, we know that we have an understanding of morality and can make moral choices, we have intelligence, we experience love and hate etc. That is the equivalent of the gun residue. We know these things exist but we can only come up with a subjective view on whether or not the abiogenesis or evolutionary gun was fired by a designer or by additional natural processes. What is the evidence for you coming to that conclusion? There are two levels to this. I am a theist of which my sub-set is Christianity. Essentially it is my theistic beliefs that you are talking about.Also, over the time that I have been a theist and a Christian I have changed my views considerably. As I continue to learn I adapt my beliefs in accordance with what to me is new information.We are here for a reason. That fundamental reason is either intelligent or mindless. We don’t know but we can look at what we know and form our subjective opinions or beliefs. You come to your opinions in the same way that I do but you have simply come to a different subjective opinion. Everything that you criticize about my beliefs could equally be applied to yours.What I do have that supports my belief are the experiences I have had, and the changes that have resulted from my belief to my own nature and worldview.

I don’t know it but it is my opinion that it is. If time is an internal aspect of our universe then we must be part of something more that contains our universe where change or time is multi-dimensional. That brings us back to cavediver’s point about cause and effect. I’ll repeat it here so that it is easier to reference.

quote:

---

Cause and Effect is a concept born of our anthropocentric experience. We drop a cup, it falls to the floor and smahes into thousands of shards. It is easy to assign the dropping as cause and the smashing as effect; it is utterly counterintuitive to reverse those roles. And so we learn to assign causes and effects, and feel that behind those things we call effects should lie something to which we can assign the term cause.
But this is only true at the macroscopic level. At the quantum level, everything is time reversible. What appears as cause can just as easily appear as effect. An electron and a positron annihilate to create two photons. Two photons pair-create an electron and positron out of the vacuum. The exact same process viewed in two opposite directions through time.

​

In fact, as we build up these interactions into something much more complex, we realise that there is no cause and effect as such, but simple consistency. One can say that the effect requires the cause, but there is just as much validity to say that the cause required the effect. Causality is simply a constraint on what parts of the interaction have to be consistent with what other parts.

---

In other words what looks like cause to us who are locked in time can really be effect and vice versa. This seems to me to strongly indicate that existence isn’t temporal and that abiogenesis can just as easily be the effect of life as it can be the cause for life. If you stretch that further then presumably death can be a cause for birth. If you take that further then it does provide evidence that our physical death doesn’t lead to oblivion but to birth.In the end I think that we can come to one of two conclusions. If cavediver is right I contend that it should lead us to believe that our temporal life in this universe is actually one aspect of a life that isn’t bounded by birth and death. If however, cavediver is wrong in his conclusions about cause and effect then we are back to needing a first cause for life. But if you go back to what cavediver said then why couldn’t evolution be the cause of imperfect replicators? If you are applying one set of rules to the origins of life and another set to life itself. It may not require a cause but if it doesn’t then, as I say, it follows that our life only appears to be bounded by birth and death. If that is the case we still require a reason for experiencing life the way we do in one time direction only. This all reminds me of Abbot’s book Flatland.
So maybe it isn’t cause that we require but a reason that life as we perceive it exists, but from our time bound perception it looks the same.This is all getting very esoterical and all this thinking has exhausted me or is it the exhaustion that had me thinking? Nope. Just looking for answers whatever they are.

In my defence it is a confusing subject in a field with not much absolute knowledge and a great deal of speculation. This is a lot like the discussion about micro-evolution and macro-evolution where the argument is that there is no macro-evolution but only a long history of micro-evolution. In the end everything is made up of particles and so QM is fundamental to all life, and in the end what we call macro is made up of virtually infinite quatum events.I’ll repeat again what cavediver said just so I can refer to it.

quote:

---

Cause and Effect is a concept born of our anthropocentric experience. We drop a cup, it falls to the floor and smahes into thousands of shards. It is easy to assign the dropping as cause and the smashing as effect; it is utterly counterintuitive to reverse those roles. And so we learn to assign causes and effects, and feel that behind those things we call effects should lie something to which we can assign the term cause.
But this is only true at the macroscopic level. At the quantum level, everything is time reversible. What appears as cause can just as easily appear as effect. An electron and a positron annihilate to create two photons. Two photons pair-create an electron and positron out of the vacuum. The exact same process viewed in two opposite directions through time.
In fact, as we build up these interactions into something much more complex, we realise that there is no cause and effect as such, but simple consistency. One can say that the effect requires the cause, but there is just as much validity to say that the cause required the effect. Causality is simply a constraint on what parts of the interaction have to be consistent with what other parts.

---

Cavediver says that EVERYTHING at the quantum level is time reversible. If that is the case we have to ask why isn’t that true at the so called macroscopic level. He starts off by saying that our concept of cause and effect comes from our anthropocentric experience. Our perception of reality, or our anthropocentric experience, is that the arrow of time only flows in one direction. However at the quantum level, which in reality is everything, time is reversible.The question becomes why is our experience different that the reality. IMHO it is reasonable to suggest that the difference is based on our consciousness. It is consciousness that makes our universe what it is, and from what cavediver says it appears that our study of QM indicates that our perception is limited to just one aspect of it.If you are going to do away with a cause for the universe and a cause for life then you can no longer then argue against theism by asking the question of a cause for Tom. I watched the videos and read the article. I’ll likely order the book. There are two things that strike me. Firstly because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics his sand castle will break down but on the other hand there is nothing in the laws of physics that says the sand can’t on reform back to a sand castle. However the natural state of being is that things are entropic so we only see the sand castle break down.I understand that life appears to go against that but from what I understand that isn’t the case due to the heat generated from the food we eat. However that does not explain life arising in the first place. Entropy would have had to flow in a negative direction for life to arise which is consistent with what cavediver is talking about at the quantum level. This then would be one example of entropy flowing in the opposite direction at the macro level and not just the quantum level. OK., but then again you can’t talk about a cause for Tom without first appreciating causes. There may be no objective evidence as such that Tom exists, but without going through all that again, IMHO what we do know about life and the world as we perceive it, very strongly suggests that the most reasonable subjective conclusion is that we are the result of an intelligent planner.We know that the universe that we perceive is finite and yet we have a sense of purpose. We have an instinct for survival that we can override to an ideal or even for a puppy as we talked about. Within our consciousness we know that our lives individually and collectively should make a difference, yet against all that we still struggle to overcome the pull of personal gratification and desire for power. Just to say that this all stems from mindless processes that began with base elements is mental stretch that you have been able to make that I can’t. You can say that is an argument from incredulity but then that is also true of you finding the idea of an intelligent planned incredulous.By faith I go beyond that and find that Christianity, as understood through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, (not through an inerrant Bible), to provide the answer for purpose and direction of life. This faith has impacted my life in ways that I find inexplicable on their own without some explanation beyond my own consciousness. I frankly have very little doubt about my basic Christian faith, however it is not science.

But all of the arguments you use against me can be applied to atheism. Atheism requires the acceptance of the belief that as all that science has learned about life has involved natural processes and that we have not discovered any evidence for an intelligent designer, that natural processes, as we understand them, are all that there is and there is no need to invoke any intelligent planner. What science does tell us though is that our universe isn’t all that there is. We have no idea what other processes or reality that might exist as a result of being part of something greater than what we perceive.I suppose I didn’t arrive at my theistic beliefs by observing the Universe and then making careful, logically consistent extrapolations’. Frankly I read CS Lewis which led me to believe that I might be wrong about my previous beliefs and then went from there. In over 30 years of being a Christian my specific beliefs have evolved considerably and they continue to evolve.Yes I am confident that my theistic beliefs are broadly accurate and I’ve heard many arguments against them, which I have found unconvincing. I doubt very much that I could be persuaded otherwise, which I would think is pretty much exactly the position that you are in.When you say that the conversation is nearly pointless because I’m not going to be convinced that my beliefs are in error, I have to assume that we have a different idea of the point. My goal is not to convince you to convert to Christianity or even to theism. My goal is to explain as best I can how I have come to my beliefs.I am told on this thread that my beliefs are irrational, ridiculous etc. Frankly it is my view that it is irrational and ridiculous to believe that consciousness that includes intelligence, emotions and morality can emerge from mindless non-dimensional or uni-dimensional particles. However I don’t normally see any need in saying that. In your view though it does seem that disagreeing with your view is irrational, and that it is only your view that is rational. It certainly does not prove me right, but there are many highly qualified people in the world of science who agree with the rationality of my position.AbE I thought I'd quickly reply to this point seeing as how Tangle respondsed. The size of the universe is irrelevant. It is simply large from our perception and don't forget that at one point it was simply a tiny point of what was presumably energy. What you are doing is painting your own anthropomorphic view of what you believe a god should be.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Obviously another well thought out conclusion. One of the better arguments against atheism on the forum.

This is an example of why there are so few theists left around here.I had actually tried to come up with a definition for atheism as part of a discussion with Rahvin that would be acceptable to atheists and I get this response from Tangle. I do get a little tired of being treated like an imbecile who's been duped so sure I responded somewhat sarcastically and of course I get jeered. Normally I just don't respond to that kind of post but I guess this time it just particularly bugged me.Now of course we have kjsimons telling us how he was so much smarter at age 10 than others who have spent a considerably longer life time considering these things.You guys can sit around puffing up your egos by congratulating yourselves on how clever you are not to be duped like simple minded people like myself, if it makes you feel good. I saw recently on another thread that this was essentially a forum for atheists and if that is what you want then just let me know and I'm out of here.I normally haven't paid much attention to posts like this as I am grateful for many our conversations, and I have learned a lot from many of you. However, I had been asked about my beliefs so I started a thread on the topic. After posting as much as what I have done on this thread to try and explain what I believe and how I came to those beliefs, I simply found these rather juvenile posts particularly frustrating.