News1 min ago
Searching For Atheist Apologists.
130 Answers
I have searched in vain for atheist apologists who can present plausible theories of the origin of the universe.
So far, the ones I have found all presuppose a, "something," as a part of their definition of nothing.
Lawrence Krausse requires laws to make, "nothing," unstable.
Hawking required gravity.
An unnamed YouTube lecturer required that time was past eternal.
Can you direct me to any more?
So far, the ones I have found all presuppose a, "something," as a part of their definition of nothing.
Lawrence Krausse requires laws to make, "nothing," unstable.
Hawking required gravity.
An unnamed YouTube lecturer required that time was past eternal.
Can you direct me to any more?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Nobody has disproven this.//
That's ^ absurd. Nobody doesn't even exist.
There's one simple basic fact that you do not seem able to grasp that refutes nearly all of your assertions. Existence is primary and everything (< see what I've done there?) else follows from that without exception. Before there can be anything (no less something as complex as awareness, consciousness, mind, intention, creativity, purpose) there must be something from which a mind can come about and something for a mind to be mindful about. Only by ignoring this one essential fact can you conjure up any and all of your ludicrous assertions.
Consciousness without something to be conscious of is a contradiction that can only be contrived with complete and total disregard of and for reality.
That's ^ absurd. Nobody doesn't even exist.
There's one simple basic fact that you do not seem able to grasp that refutes nearly all of your assertions. Existence is primary and everything (< see what I've done there?) else follows from that without exception. Before there can be anything (no less something as complex as awareness, consciousness, mind, intention, creativity, purpose) there must be something from which a mind can come about and something for a mind to be mindful about. Only by ignoring this one essential fact can you conjure up any and all of your ludicrous assertions.
Consciousness without something to be conscious of is a contradiction that can only be contrived with complete and total disregard of and for reality.
Sean Carroll, atheist whose intellect I greatly admire, was asked a question described as a " Brute Fact," that is, why is there something rather than nothing ?
In spite of his extensive scientific knowledge, his answer took me aback. He answered with another question, another Brute Fact. He answered, "Why Not"
It seems we are back to square one.
In spite of his extensive scientific knowledge, his answer took me aback. He answered with another question, another Brute Fact. He answered, "Why Not"
It seems we are back to square one.
https:/
See the section headed "Shaping Human Evolution"
See the section headed "Shaping Human Evolution"
Theland //Mutations generally are deficient and a loss of information to the DNA causing I llness and disability.//
Yes, in general they are not a good thing though they don't necessarily cause a loss of information but a change of information. Sometimes they make no difference and sometimes they confer an advantage.
It is clear that genes sometimes make multiple copies of themselves. If this does not cause a problem the extra copies provide an opportunity for some to mutate into genes that lead to new and novel features without losing the original feature.
//Viruses and bacteria add nothing to our DNA, and I. Fact are attacked by antibodies. //
Our immune system doesn't always win. Retroviruses reproduce by splicing their genes into cells' DNA, taking over the molecular machinery and causing the cell to make viruses. If the host survives and the virus infects a germ cell, the genes can become a permanent part of the germ line and become available to the host genome where they occasionally mutate into useful features.
Approximately eight percent of our genome was inherited from viruses. Some of these genes are vital in the reproductive processes of animals.
//They do nothing to improve DNA which continues faithfully to reproduce copie of itself.//
Genes do not faithfully copy themselves. Have you ever wondered why the meiosis process is not perfect? It is because there is an optimum susceptibility to mutation. If the process were perfect there could be no change and no evolution. It is worth the risk of huge numbers fatal flaws because occasionally something good comes of it.
It doesn't matter that most of the mutations are failures that disadvantage the individual because evolution happens on populations and new features are an advantage to the population.
Yes, in general they are not a good thing though they don't necessarily cause a loss of information but a change of information. Sometimes they make no difference and sometimes they confer an advantage.
It is clear that genes sometimes make multiple copies of themselves. If this does not cause a problem the extra copies provide an opportunity for some to mutate into genes that lead to new and novel features without losing the original feature.
//Viruses and bacteria add nothing to our DNA, and I. Fact are attacked by antibodies. //
Our immune system doesn't always win. Retroviruses reproduce by splicing their genes into cells' DNA, taking over the molecular machinery and causing the cell to make viruses. If the host survives and the virus infects a germ cell, the genes can become a permanent part of the germ line and become available to the host genome where they occasionally mutate into useful features.
Approximately eight percent of our genome was inherited from viruses. Some of these genes are vital in the reproductive processes of animals.
//They do nothing to improve DNA which continues faithfully to reproduce copie of itself.//
Genes do not faithfully copy themselves. Have you ever wondered why the meiosis process is not perfect? It is because there is an optimum susceptibility to mutation. If the process were perfect there could be no change and no evolution. It is worth the risk of huge numbers fatal flaws because occasionally something good comes of it.
It doesn't matter that most of the mutations are failures that disadvantage the individual because evolution happens on populations and new features are an advantage to the population.
Theland //Amoeba has some form of awareness it not consciousness as we understand it.//
How would you know what kind of consciousness an amoeba has? It manages to chase down food, evade predators, seek out and exchange genes with other cells and reproduce itself. All without a single neuron, let alone a nervous system.
We don't know what consciousness is for ourselves and we certainly can't know what it is like for other organisms.
How would you know what kind of consciousness an amoeba has? It manages to chase down food, evade predators, seek out and exchange genes with other cells and reproduce itself. All without a single neuron, let alone a nervous system.
We don't know what consciousness is for ourselves and we certainly can't know what it is like for other organisms.
mibs //Before there can be anything (no less something as complex as awareness, consciousness, mind, intention, creativity, purpose) there must be something from which a mind can come about and something for a mind to be mindful about. Only by ignoring this one essential fact can you conjure up any and all of your ludicrous assertions.//
Well said.
Well said.
Latest Posts
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News1 min ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News3 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.