How do Christians and other people who necessarily must believe in full on libertarian Free Will reconcile with...

How do Christians and other people who necessarily must believe in full on libertarian Free Will reconcile with scientific research and proof of things like mental disorders, personality disorders, brainwashing, conditioning, addiction, the effects of propaganda, media and advertising, speech errors and typos, Libet's experiment, food and substance's effects on mood and behavior, nurture, suggestion, unconscious behaviors, habits, brain chemistry etc.?

Seems like if we had no prior preconception of how our brains worked and only had the science and personal experience we wouldn't come to the conclusion of libertarian Free Will. Like Free Will is something we assume before the evidence.

Attached: TheUnfixedBrain1.webm (800x600, 1.86M)

haha I'm bumping.

Big brained post.

Attached: 1544700472432.png (529x546, 239K)

Because the chemicals in our brain that influence our actions don't explain the condition known as consciousness. Also notice I said influence and not decide.
All humans have the capacity to practice free will, but ultimately it's our decision and most choose not to.
There is no chemical that tells Tibetan monks to light themselves on fire or to starve themselves to death.

Attached: 1536851385256.jpg (647x820, 73K)

Yeah, but if you get a lobotomy then you won't be making a lot of decisions then, will you?

If your consciousness wasn't a physical phenomena, then your "will" shouldn't be influenced by said phenomena.

Attached: help.jpg (630x748, 67K)

something about seeing the brain like this really gets me

it's us summed up, just some meat with electric impulses

fucked up, kill me

The problem with what you're saying is that Free Will and consciousness and their existences are givens and should be considered true until science can prove them wrong. That is incoherent.

Let's think of a different part of the brain. Imagine there's a hypothetical part of the brain/mind(that isn't consciousness) that we didn't know how to explain and that we couldn't quite locate, let's say it directs flatulence. Let's say that flatulence is always directed in some particular way that changes from person to person and situation to situation. Let's also make it so that all else we know for sure is that we have evidence to prove that many other parts of the brain also differ from person to person and their function differs from situation to situation and they all direct different things but are determined by things the person didn't necessarily choose(e.g. the brain's ability to register stimuli, maintain homeostasis or a countless number of other things).

So, should the particular directing of flatulence not also be considered not necessarily chosen by us? Why would we, with the evidence and lack of evidence in mind, ever conclude that we flatulate free of external causes and internal structure and are therefore Free Farters? Wouldn't a sect of Free Farters look insane by saying that not only are their farts Free, their farts are directed independent of the physical world or that the part of their brain that directs farts might exist physically but is somehow not affected by anything physical, unlike every part of the brain?
How would the Free Farting movement not be pulling all of this out of their ass?

here
>The problem with what you're saying is that Free Will and consciousness and their existences are givens
The problem with what you're saying is that you assume that Free Will and consciousness and their existences and their independence are givens*

That first sentence is the shortest part of the post but the most important so I gotta fix that fuck up.

because knowing how something functions doesn't necessarily say anything to why it functions

It's really that simple. I realize you're 16 and dunking on muh christians makes you feel intelligent. But religion and spirituality has nothing to do with how the brain works. I was also a dumb faggot atheist when I was younger. But then I grew up, experienced the world a bit, learned that the world is a bit more complex than grade school biology, and now I'm not sure what to think. I just know that it's more complicated than hard science versus mysticism and whatever other small-brained dichotomies you create. This type of skepticism is really a poison on your mind because it creates a feedback loop of smugness that will stunt any development of actual intellectual pursuits. It's masturbation.

Attached: 90865237667.png (510x823, 792K)

They literally don't think about these things.

Normies live in bubbles of willful ignorance and self-delusion just so they don't blow their worthless brains out over how meaningless and unfulfilling their lives are. Seriously, try talking to a normie about their political, spiritual and social beliefs every once in a while. You'll be blown away by how childishly inane they are.

A lobotomy is no different from death, the only difference is that your organs keep working as the part of the brain they need is still functional. Those lobotomized are no different from animals
Besides, we still don't know if something like a lobotomy renders a person aconscious, but rather unable to express the signs
I'm not saying that free will is the default, just that there's more than biology to this. I'm also not saying that biology didn't have a factor, just not the deciding factor.
We can't rule out the possibility of a person just letting their flatulence go on autopilot, and vice versa. I think that if someone were to preach to others about taking control of their own bodies it could be interpreted that way, but that's how the animalistic side of humanity reacts to any type of change. Human beings in particular, not just humans, have the ability to control themselves, and while some animals can be trained to a degree, we can train ourselves. Which can be amounted to free will. The free farter movement would have to accept that most people just prefer to run on autopilot, it's easier but less fulfilling.
A free farter would be able to hold in their farts, control them, not the brain, but the consciousness. The consciousness can give control to the brain, but ultimately we are not our brain

That's like asking how Christians reconcile the flu, or a genetic deformity. Illness exists in the world, Christians recognize that. A tall man and a short man are still men. A smart man and a "retarded" man are still men. You have no conception of how these people rely view the world, don't just assume they're animals because of their damaged brains.

Is a man no different from an animal when he's sleeping? When he's in a coma? Its silly.

Of course, in Reality people with no preconceived notions of the brain with only logic & experience concluded free will exists.
First, you seem to misunderstand Libertarianism metaphysics - it is a rejection of hard determinism, not a requirement of unfettered cosmic power.
And, of course, there is nothing a fucking hilarious as a moron arguing against free will

Attached: E6BF9ECC-0305-4D72-8FBF-987F77EC30EE.jpg (500x437, 56K)

Stop: moving the goalposts.
Your analogy is akin to saying
>people with no legs cannot walk, therefore you cannot decide where to go
Fucktarded

First, there is no assumption.
Second, even if there were it would not be incoherent.
Your given scenario dodges an important issue-
If there is no free will there is no such thing as science, so your argument that science proves anything is self-refuting

Your answer to "How do you reconcile believing that a function of the brain doesn't rely on physical reality when that function is shown to rely on a physical form and is shown to be materialized by, molded by, impeded by or stopped by things in physical reality?" is "Well you don't know why all of that happens".

That doesn't answer the question and hints that you possibly don't realize what's being asked. I'm saying that something inside the universe is affected and possibly altered entirely things by inside the universe so how can you believe that every action is either all decided by a thing that is outside the universe or functions independently of it. It's also possible that you believe that X amount of actions can be done on autopilot(e.g. Libet's experiment) while Y amount of actions are caused by a force outside or independent of the universe. I'm simply asking "Where does this come from?" and, consequently "If you don't know, what compels you to believe this?"

The question was terrible.
Further consciousness is not
>outside the universe
you Materialist sperg.

>If there is no free will there is no such thing as science
Explain.

Why can there be no systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe if there may not be a force independent of or outside the universe that causes humans to make certain or all actions?

First, where does this
>force independent of or outside the universe
bullshit come from, your fevered imagination? So far all you have proven is that you do not understand what is meant by Free Will.
Second, the process of analysis called the Scientific Method demands that the htpothesis, observations, etc be made by a consciousness with free will. In a Deterministic universe there cannot be science because no scientist chooses an hypothesis, no observation can be objective, and conclusions reached are done mechanistically and are predetermined by unrelated factors such as lunch, mommy not hugging you enough, and the age of the sun.
Without free will scientist are player pianos and *science* is just owls hooting or coyotes howling - response to stimuli with no meaning

Libertarian Free Will relies on the idea that some or all actions are made by something, a decider, that is either outside the physical, independent of the physical that is not itself and/or is something physical or non-physical hosted by something physical but does not decide dependent on anything physical.

Where does this belief come from for you? If you don't know, what compels you to believe this?

>Second, the process of analysis called the Scientific Method demands that the htpothesis, observations, etc be made by a consciousness with free will

no it doesn't. it's a tacit assumption, that we have a consciousness and are the agents behind our actions. we simply cannot think otherwise, but that doesn't make it a prerequirement of anything.

Let me guess about you
On the one hand
>you reject free will and believe in Determinism & Materialism leading you to the position that people are, effectively, machine whose actions & thoughts are determined by outside factors that cannot be overcome
And on the other hand
>you feel pride in your intellect, pride in your education, and have plans for your future
And do not realize that those positions contradict each other.

Like was said - someone trying to convince others there is no Free Will is funny. The reason?
If there is no Free Will they are only saying that like a robocaller, logic does not exist, and listeners cannot choose to change their position.
It would be like a plant growing toward the sun thinking doing so will make it rain

God fucking damn it OP why did you have to make a thread about free will. Just when I was enjoying things and starting to feel like I was in control of my life you have to go and remind me of the depressing reality that it's all an illusion.

Although I suppose I can't really blame you since you did so through no free will of your own, but still...

>First, where does this
>>force independent of or outside the universe
>bullshit come from, your fevered imagination?
I think I explained it better here: If none of that applies to what Free Will is to you then you either don't really believe in Free Will, you're making shit up, or you have a different dictionary than I do because Free Will is defined as the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded and a lack of impediment would entail one of the ideas I've listed in that last post and impediment would be any of the things I've listed in the OP and several, countless things in the physical that I did not.

JFC, really?
Did you only read Wikipedia or are you in the first semester of Philosophy 105 and hoping for a C if you study?
In the Agent version of Libertarianism metaphysics the agent is *the human being making the decision*; the argument is that free will is not involved in materialistic chain of events without option. Or, if a tree falls whether we move left or right to get out of the way is not determined by a physical event *only*

Attached: 396C5A48-CE7C-4C00-8A93-7B9EC6BBAFE6.gif (250x195, 801K)

>I do not understand basic philosophy
Translated that for you.
I mean, that is obvious, but thanks for admitting it

which part of "basic philosophy" do you think i don't understand?

Read
Agent version Libertarianism metaphysics is about 5% of *just* the Libertarianism portion of discussion for free will *and you obviously do not understand THAT*!!!!
Your fucktarded
>either you are an Agent Libertarianism guy or you are a liar
is as fucked up ignorant as saying
>either you are from London or you are French
You are too fucking stupid to waste more time on

Attached: B77B595F-78A7-4D93-AAF0-8C4A76281C55.jpg (1800x1800, 564K)

>you reject free will
I reject the idea that, with what we know and what we don't, human decision currently has to be exclusively explained by libertarian Free Will in order to make sense of decision making and I question how this conclusion can be rationally arrived at from what we know about human behavior and the brain alone.
>believe in Determinism & Materialism
I don't necessarily believe in hard determinism, it's only something that more easily becomes an answer to the question of human decision making than libertarian Free Will given what we know but it doesn't necessarily need to be reality. There are other things like probabilism that can become an answer as easily as hard determinism, I want to remain open to other possibilities. I also don't have much faith in people's definition of materialism, it seems to be a derogatory term.
> leading you to the position that people are, effectively, machine whose actions & thoughts are determined by outside factors that cannot be overcome
Machine implies that I don't think that human beings are filled with life, emotion and personality but that isn't the case. The evidence heavily suggest that outside factors matter in terms of human behavior. However, I've never said that predicaments couldn't be overcome, in fact, I would say that until we can predict the future perfectly we should never conclude that our problems have to exist forever or that tomorrow won't be a better day.
>you feel pride in your intellect, pride in your education, and have plans for your future
>And do not realize that those positions contradict each other.
?

>convince others
>robocaller
One, I never said that I was trying to convince others, I genuinely wanted to know how people reconcile the data with that belief. Two, robocallers is not a good analogy, chat bots is better, if you have two chat bots talk to each other forever then they will change their arguments in response to each other and as a result of their algorithm.

Free will is an element of the soul though, separate from the body, the way I've always understood the concept/heard it talked about is more of something that governs certain decisions and points of your life, not something you're constantly consciously exercising.
Think of it as the electrical impulses that stimulate stuff going on in the brain, not necessarily the chemical imbalances that might be present at all times, or stuff like habits that mostly arise from you getting some kind of outside chemical into your body that creates dopamine that you wouldn't normally get somehow.
But not the same electrical signals your nervous system also uses to run your arms and other boring utility stuff, again free will is mostly a concept and if you're going to demand that the human body have a specific physical function tied to free will you're just not ready for this conversation yet.

Free will is real because those physical systems that you mentioned are all under control of God, who is not bound by your perceived illusory rules of physical constraint.

>the argument is that free will is not involved in materialistic chain of events without option. Or, if a tree falls whether we move left or right to get out of the way is not determined by a physical event *only*
These two statements don't seem to be the same thing, even if they may be consistent with each other, though I assumed the latter was an analogy.

Moving on
>the argument is that free will is not involved in materialistic chain of events without option
>involved in
Do you mean employed in? By free will do you mean the agent? Do you mean that a person doesn't eat an apple just because [PHYSICAL BRAIN THINGS] happened but because [PHYSICAL BRAIN THINGS] happened AND a force that is either physical or non-physical, hosted by something physical but does not decide dependent on anything physical, caused the person to eat the apple and that the force could override the [PHYSICAL BRAIN THINGS] if it had wanted?

You have to understand the Christian view of sin. Sin is something we are born into. You cannot escape it or do anything to rid yourself of it. As the Bible says: even our righteous works are like dirty rags before a holy God.

The Bible also says the wages of sin is death. Death first entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned against God by disobeying Him. When Man decided we would be masters of our fate and decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, we separated ourselves from harmony with God, the source of Life. Life, Order, Light - these things come from God. Apart from Him, they do not exist.

God is an infinitely powerful, perfectly just being. He cannot tolerate even the slightest wickedness to go unpunished. Otherwise he would not be perfectly just. Before you complain, consider what it would be like to have a God who didn't care about injustice or cruelty? Hell is an awful place, but that is just a consequence of separation from the only source of goodness.

God, in His mercy, sent his son Jesus Christ to bear the price of our rebellion. This satisfies his just nature and allows humanity to enter into communion with Him again. When you confess Christ is lord and accept what He did for you on the Cross, God looks at his righteous life and attributes it to you. It is unearned salvation.

Now, to get back to your original question - how do we reconcile Free Will with mental disorders and other defects of the brain? To the degree that someone's moral agency is compromised by a physical or chemical defect - something totally beyond their control: we see that this is not really a problem with the biblical view of sin. We are all born into a sin state and nothing we can do will fix that. None of our good behavior is what gets you into heaven. And you can't unearn what you never earned to begin with. As for those who are born mentally incompetent or retarded, there is a debate, but the prevailing view is that Christ's sacrifice covers them.

>Think of it as the electrical impulses that stimulate stuff going on in the brain
So it's like the impulses that sparked up in the brain before a person was aware they were going to make a decision in Libet's experiment? Except here they're out of body soul thingies that veto, allow or cause certain decisions and, if a higher-scale version of Libet's experiment were carried out, there would be no electrical impulses sparking practically years before the person consciously goes to make the decision right? All impulses would either not be there or would appear as the intention reaches consciousness right?

How did you arrive at this?

I accidentally made this smug, sorry in advance.

>God who didn't care about injustice or cruelty
yes a perfect absolute being of such unimaginable splendor trolls humanity with kosher laws, sabbath laws and menstrual cycle laws. this is what he cares about, he cares about weird things that a jew in the bronze age could make up.

>Free Will is real but God is the puppetmaster and he's the one with Free Will
That's a funny way of looking at it.

those cleanliness laws made a lot of sense to keep a dirty nomadic tribe clean and healthy.

but the point of the old testament law was to demonstrate to the world just how strict and impossible it is live a perfect life.

Man I wanna squish that fucking brain and eat the little brown meaty parts of it

Attached: 1544459467033.png (633x758, 44K)

it doesn't make any sense, and there are parts in the bible, like with pharaoh in exodus where god makes a person sin. Don't think that the bible is consistent the Christians simply say "god's ways are higher" "who are we to question him" if there are any real problems. He is a made up entity and there's no proof he exists.

don't forget to eat unleavened bread on a certain day of the year because of israel, super important for the creator of the universe to have you do that.

Jesus also had issues with the Jews of the time, that's why they crucified him. He "broke the law" by healing on the Sabbath.
We're all children of God and have some agency of our own.

jesus was a jew, that was his whole thing, he was a perfect jew who called people goy and everything, the bible is a jewish book.

you're trying to be smug but you're just displaying your lack of knowledge. Nobody has to celebrate passover to be saved.

Because Christians gutted the law to make it more appealing to the masses, your religion is a meme, it's basically a roman religion.

I'll sum up literally all of the arguments that the theists will present in this thread:

God works in mysterious ways

Because the human brain shorts out and becomes dysfunctional if it does not believe it is free. Any other state can be made happy but only through fragile delusions.

>Free will is not real
>Believing so leads to a lower standard of life, especially since our understanding of determinism is too incomplete to leverage that fact
>Therefore, I must believe in free will

Ignorance born from education is the superior ignorance.

Maybe Corinthians or Timothy is more your speed, since they're New Testament books written for gentiles.

Christian Theism is a more consistent, tenable worldview than Materialism

I already know more than you there's no need to preach nigger

Wisdom is meaningless.
-The bible

that depends on what you mean by worldview

>Iamverysmart
>SCIENCE RULZ
>"speech errors disprove free will"
and yet, your stupidity and decision to have this blind, ignorant opinion proves it.

lets say your one dimensional "Theory" is correct and you're not actually a dipshit. that would mean 100% of the people you show this ****evidence**** to will have the same bad opinion. i'll give you a hint how that will turn out - no.

"How much better to get wisdom than gold, to get insight rather than silver!"

-The Actual Bible, Proverbs 16:16

I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens. What a heavy burden God has laid on mankind!
I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
What is crooked cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted.
I said to myself, "Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge."
Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes 1:13-18

he's probably referring to the passage about god making the wisdom of the world foolishness, or Ecclesiastes where it says everything in life is meaningless besides keeping the jewish laws

>that pic
>"consciousness"
The retarded mouse doubles down on donald's reductionism, not really attempting to disprove it. Free will is impossible and consciousness is an abstract meme with no backing whatsoever.

blow it out your ass you fucking cuck it's such a cheap way to pretend to be smart to quote the bible and pretend you don't know what he means, fuck off with that shit.

>If your theory is correct 100 of people will agree with it
wot, have you never talked to a human person before?

obviously you have enough knowledge of the Bible to know that you are being deliberately ignorant, or misleading to say the Biblical view of wisdom is that it is "meaningless"

Ecclesiastes is a book written by Solomon lamenting that everyone dies, "there is nothing new under the sun", it is better to spend life enjoying what your work, and working for something eternal (god's purposes) than toiling endlessly just to acquire wealth, or knowledge, or whatever your vain selfish pursuit is.

Hey man, I was just quoting scripture with scripture. I understand that you spend too much time alone, but maybe if you try going to a small church where you can get into a study group, you'll feel less need to lash out at random strangers on the internet.

I don't see how that is wrong. I don't interpret that as meaning wisdom is useless, just that wisdom itself is not fulfilling, and actually burdensome in some cases. The pursuit of insight is endless and, eventually, empty.

Hey man, your religion is a meme, Christianity is basically a pagan religion at this point, everything from churches, to christmas to easter are all pagan gentile practices, why is that? Pretend you normies are saved for all i care you're all clowns to me.

>shilling your religion on the internet
We're reaching levels of yikes that shouldn't even be possible.

How do atheists reconcile the fact that we literally don't understand why our universe exist and that there is no logical reason for sentience to exist in an otherwise inanimate universe.

Scientists have yet to make life out of nothing/basic building blocks of life. That's right, even in the year 2018 when we have harnessed the power of lightening and the sun and can supposedly alter gene's by hand we are still unable to create life even when we understand what is needed to potentially create it.

The smartest creatures in the universe (that we know of) cannot create life even with the basic building blocks yet we are supposed to believe that life happens by accident.

We are supposed to suppose that not only did this accident occur once, but many times and that life was already programmed to propagate for what reason exactly?

Only a fool would not see that deft hands at work and that there is something much bigger than themselves.

Only when I went through my rebellious stage as a teenager did I confront the truth that atheists are by and large vein, narcissistic and pompous. They think they have all the answers when they literally don't even have the preface of the universe's infinite storybook. Sure there are plenty of Christians that are the same, but at least they acknowledge the truth that we simply do not know and that there is something larger at work than ourselves.

Joke's on you, I converted from neopaganism

>How do atheists reconcile the fact that we literally don't understand why our universe exist
because you're a brainlet

>chemicals in our brain that influence our actions don't explain the condition known as consciousness
>Libet's experiment
read OPs post

That's not answering his question though

Attached: properpoliticaldiscourse.png (1024x416, 249K)

that wasn't the image i wanted to post

Materialism is the most short-sighted, narcissistic worldview there is. It is like a character in a SIMS game declaring there is no player one because he can't perceive or fully comprehend what he is. Yet player one exists anyways.

the statistical evidence shows that brainlets, and humans in general, do not exist.

>How do atheists reconcile the fact that we literally don't understand why our universe exis
By not making baseless assumptions and pursuing the answer constantly instead of stopping at one of many possibilities with no proof to substantiate it over other possibilities.

>but you say muh god ain't real
Only anti-theistic atheists say that. Secular and agostic atheists don't rule out the possibility but they have no belief because there is no evidence for any particular religion.

It's clear that he cared enough to google "wisdom scripture," but what good is it thinking that religion is about memorizing scripture and raping children rather than helping the people that are sick, lost, and alone? A good shepherd cares when a sheep goes missing.

Look up cognitive dissonance. It'll explain it.

Atheists still don't have an answer for Ex Nihilo, Nihil fit (out of nothing, comes nothing).

When you corner them on this, they resort to either saying "Hey man Atheism just means I lack a belief in God ok I dont have to answer anything"

OR

They resort to citing some harebrained quantum phsyics theory that no one, themselves included, really understands and is based on three academics citing each other in a circlejerk to keep their tenure.

The simple truth is, if at some point in the history of the Universe, absolutely nothing existed, then it is logically impossible for anything to exist at all. Therefore, something eternal necessarily exists. This thing, everyone understands to be God.

And before the Atheists say that Matter, or the Universe could be eternal - I tell them they are just attempting to move the goalposts. They have never observed, and cant comprehend what it means for something to be eternal. Their worldview does not allow it.

Wow.
user was right, you flat out didnt even read the Wiki on agent theory free will, and do not even understand the neuroscience.

>out of nothing, comes nothing
The big bang isn't nothing, brainlet.
Also, nobody knows what there was before that- especially retarded sandniggers.

>Hey man Atheism just means I lack a belief in God ok I dont have to answer anything
Lel pottery

How to access dark web wikipedia

Attached: 2018-12-14 08_59_10-_agent theory free will_ - Google Search.png (893x246, 7K)

>imma repeat bullshit wiccans made up bout Easter & Christmas cuz I smart

that's my entire point you dumbass, atheism or materialism cant even begin to answer the question of ex nihilo, nihil fit.

learn to read. atheists are redditors who think they are smart because they watch doctor who and rick and morty

Free will in sense of christian theology is regards to spirit and not actual free will. Its about spiritual freedom and not actual one.

Not science, fuck off. That's like discovering evolution then assuming god is embedded into the cells of animals. You're literally just filling the absence of evidence with your deity. That doesn't mean to say we won't ever find out how the universe began, but brainlets like you certainly aren't going to help.

>Atheists still don't have an answer for Ex Nihilo, Nihil fit (out of nothing, comes nothing).
atheist simply believe there is no reason to believe a god exists, whether or not the universe came from "nothing" is besides the point.

>When you corner them on this, they resort to either saying "Hey man Atheism just means I lack a belief in God ok I dont have to answer anything"
How does this make god real? I guess i'll wait for you to get to that.

OR

>They resort to citing some harebrained quantum phsyics theory that no one, themselves included, really understands and is based on three academics citing each other in a circlejerk to keep their tenure.
Yes because it's hard to understand and few can grasp it means it's wrong and the bible is true...because reasons.

>The simple truth is, if at some point in the history of the Universe, absolutely nothing existed, then it is logically impossible for anything to exist at all. Therefore, something eternal necessarily exists. This thing, everyone understands to be God.
Everyone with a very specific set of beliefs, religions vary depending on the culture I'm sure you know that. No because we don't know how the universe came into being doesn't mean god said let there be light like you claim with 100% certainty.

>And before the Atheists say that Matter, or the Universe could be eternal - I tell them they are just attempting to move the goalposts. They have never observed, and cant comprehend what it means for something to be eternal. Their worldview does not allow it.
All you're showing is religion peddlers try to put religion where actual understanding has failed.

Come on, man, try harder

Attached: 9AE6332A-6A54-4991-BFE0-A8B311087C81.jpg (1242x1935, 920K)

>By not making baseless assumptions

Logic would follow that a baseless assumption would be that there is no God.

Mankind has never experienced spontaneous sentience. Ever. Never. Can't even replicate it with the building blocks of life. If we cannot create it "by accident" or experience it naturally then the assumption is something must have created sentience. Houses, desks, robots, pens, pencils, tools of any sort don't just appear naturally. However, we know what makes up those things and so we can make them which means intelligence was behind the creation of these inanimate objects that naturally do not exist.

We have never experienced even a single cell organism spontaneously animating. Ever. We know the basic building blocks that can make up that cell, and scientists have tried recreating the process for spontaneous animation and it has never worked in the history of mankind.

So let me ask you a question. if scientists found something as complex as a house out in the wild (running water and electricity) and literally cannot recreate the house even when knowing what it's comprised of I'm supposed to believe it just appeared by happen stance? A more intelligent being didn't create that house?

Atheists logic makes no sense.

Even with this all said, I totally believe in trying to learn as much about our universe as possible. If anything evidence will just point more toward God. It certainly has so far.

Why do you have to answer what literally no one has concrete evidence for and for what happened 214285714 full, first world, human lifetimes ago? I can tell you that my oatmeal drake Loopsy created the universe and it could actually be what created the universe but it means shit all if I don't have actual proof.

>So that means God is real! Checkmate athesthis
No, it means God is Loopsy.

Why do you think science is capable of answering this question? Human science is limited by human capability. It's very arrogant to assume you can know everything - we only have five senses and are bound by finite boundaries.

You still haven't even attempted to answer the problem of "out of nothing, comes nothing". You are just blindly asserting that we will figure it out one day. That's as much a statement of faith as anything a theist will tell you.

It's like a character in a SIMS game declaring there is no player one, because he can't see or understand what player one is, or his influence on the SIMS world. Yet player one exists anyways. And the SIM can never fully understand what he is like.

The SIM can still use his god-given logic and reason to figure out that there must be a reason he is there in the first place.

There's a refection of God in all of us, Anonymous. It's difficult to explain how belief makes your life better in such a radical way that your life before will seem like an eternal night.