A human cell is more sophisticated than any man made invention. Does this not allude to a creator?

Your logic is poor

X is complex

Therefore it was created

>all of universe is self-organising in some manner or the other at certain scales
>this is somehow surprising

I don't think an energetically homogeneic soup of photons would have the complexity to question the existence of physical and natural phenomena.

Super god bought him in automat for gods.

>yeah man I don't think [lifeless, inert thing] can do [thing living, breathing beings can do]

wow thanks for supporting my argument

it's an anthropic argument silly :)

Not necessarily and also that isn't true either.

non sequitur

>drawing a qualitative distinction between atomic soup and living systems is an anthropic argument

lol what a retard, god this board is filled with mongs

The functions of life are chemical processes you dumb nigger

hooooooooooooooly fuck you are a retard.

I'm done

you seem to have immense difficulties with reading comprehension honey

Both of you need to study how to form good arguements. This was painful to follow. Calling other people names is you running against the wall of your insight, being unable to form a good arguement and resulting in childish acts.

No, it alludes Homocentrism and the arrogance of Humanity when dealing with the more sophisticated force known as the struggle for survival.

not that guy but, hell, it is anthropic to a great degree. Think about your conceptualization of life. "Living" and "lifeless" things are commonly distinguished by the kind of matter they are composed of, and the kind of interactions they sustain with their environment. Yet, organic/biologic life (no, I don't think it's redundant) is a concept that originates from our comprehension of systems that interact with each other and their environment in ways that are familiar to us, that is, we as humans are a specific kind of system and recognize in organic life a familiar kind of complexity of organization.

You'd do good to read about systems theory, specially Humberto Maturana. I not really comfortable with its aplications on social sciences, but it is a brilliant way of reconceptualizing "life" as we know it.

Excellent reading thanks.

>but we're perfect

No, the question of how life can even have a concept of its arising out of a neutral, lifeless medium is not anthropic. You're just splitting hairs. Okay so living systems aren't fundamentally different from the structure present in, say, a rock, no shit, it's that rocks and symphonies exist and are possible given the same fundamental natural forces that is the question here, jesus h Christ almighty. Come on dude, systems theory? Been there done that nigger. Life exerts a downward causality on its ground precisely because it is life.

?

The existence of life is not a stronger argument for intelligent design than the existence of rivers. The distinction between the two is anthropocentric.

the existence of that which has a concept of such a thing as "river" vs. the river in-itself, in its brute objectivity, yes is a curious phenomenon and deserves closer scrutiny than citing this dawkins-tier reddit garbage

you're a sped, read more. jesus Christ.

Fuckin chill your shit, man, jesus. Thought Veeky Forums was for sensible people.

The origin of inert matter is no less puzzling than the origin of organic life, but I see your point. What I mean is that, regardless of the clear qualitative distinctions between life and the rest of the fucking perceivable universe, our perception of complexity or overcomplexity of any given system shouldn't cue metaphysical assumptions that easily, because as such, those perceptions are exclussively human in nature. And we don't wanna project humanity's flaws on the rest of nature, do we?

heh

because I'm sick of explaining the same simple fucking point 5+ times in a row

God is that systems immanently self-organize, no metaphysical baggage necessary, spirit is not substance but process, the conceptual/ethical universe created by our apprehension of the universe

cells started off much simpler.
once a self-replicating process starts, it inevitably becomes more successful due random mutation and the tenets of evolution.
Successful in our environment turned out to mean more complicated.

never thought I'd come across a fundamentalist immanent-pantheist. You people are running out of things to be mad about.

>muh labels
>immanent-pantheist

as opposed to a transcendental-pantheist? you have no idea what you're talking about

just fucking discuss ideas you pillock

Does it not at least debunk the theologian Darwin, who called it "simple" and a "bag of salt"?

No. It assumes that human beings are above nature.

Not this shit again

>Thought Veeky Forums was for sensible people.

Why do you fedoras think this is a good question?

Who told you the eternal, uncreated God had a creator?

So glad we have all done away with the false teaching of creatio ex nihilo

God is nothing now?

God spoke, and the creation sprang into existence. As God is light, you would do well to search out Nikola Tesla's famous quotation, "All is the light."

I'll get you started.

There are no particles, only fields, and fields are not particles.

>Who told you the eternal, uncreated universe had a creator?

>God spoke
>spoke

Kekarooni

The Creator.

Yes, God spoke "Light, be!" and light was.

Kek. Might as well wave around a flashing neon sign saying "Humans created this thing."

The question is simple.
If the cell is a complex machine, naturally it was created by a complex being, then who created that complex being?
This question is not new, in fact is quite old, and tackled by a couple of philosophers

And great bubba joe said let there be miller light, and miller light was.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Human beings with flashlights created the universe.

Do you not see how you're falling into an infinite regression trap?

It's been answered, in this thread.

God is not a created being.
God did not have a beginning.
God is an eternal being who always has been, is, and always will be.

"This thing" refers to God in my post.

Prove it. I can say the same thing about the universe

it alludes to something seriously strange going on, a creator would just reduce that to absurdity

Imagine being eternal and not being able to die. You just exist and ponder your existence forever. There are no answers. There is only you.

According to the logic used by OP, that's the point.

Yes, men with flashlights created God.

Holy shit this forum is an insane asylum.

You could, if you want to violate every known scientific law.

Way to get it exactly wrong.

Yes you are, considering I never mentioned a flashlight...

What

Why did God have to make things so complex?

The complexity only makes sense from the perspective that nature can't spring stuff out of thin air or intelligently design stuff.

Nope.

Cells don't allude to anything. Read texts do. As soon as you read a cell as a text you project your allusion into the cell (as with any text).

Your allusion is sufficient proof of God. One could even say you use your allusions, or that you have an allusory and immaterial power.

>I cannot follow a thread, the post.

Every scientist on earth who is a proponent of the BBT is telling you that the universe had to have a beginning, or we would be in heat death right now.

ffs learn something while you can.

The fucking palpable irony...

Was meant for

>Does this not allude to a creator?

nope. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

even if that's true, how is that proof?

But it's a cell with billions of years of evolution behind it. No wonder why Christianity died. You faggots focus on the most autistic portions of creation without realizing that you are supposed to be individuals in a community of individuals. Not autistic faggots who will never utilize anything from cell biology other than posting on a wop card community.

CONT.

But because I'm a slight devil, you still haven't given us a credible description of all the psychologies and instincts (and their analogues in whatever scale exists) of a being called God. What if he's a trickster? What if the fucking Hindus are right? What if he plays 66-d counterintuitive games using his universes?

Note that I'm not against God. Religious worship might be more "beautiful" than secular worship. Actually, it is more beautiful than modern secular worship at the least. There's a certain charm in being embedded in an omnipresent framework and relationship with a character concept that evolves as you get wiser through the years.

But man, these fucking autistic faggot Christians and these fucking southern cucks who care more about football than anything in their life. A decadent spirituality where the pupose of life and intelligence is to "feel good".

CONT.

It's not even fucking hard to even justify theologically.

"God created a universe with predetermined variables that allowed his creation(s) to achieve sentience"

Bam, you disarm a billion cuck Christian arguments. Fucking faggots who belong in the Book of Job and don't realize that they're trying to usurp the judgement and mechanations of God.

"The highest Good is the most familiar and comfortable good." is what these faggots think about God and creation.

haha no sweety

so your answer is that god was uncreated?

how does it exist then

>Every scientist on earth who is a proponent of the BBT
What about the ones that are also proponents of the big crunch theory?
Or false vacuum theory?
Why do religious arguments always take shit like the theory of evolution and the bb theory and treat them as if "scientists" worship them like dogma?

ok but what is secular worship though

i don't see how a religion with billions of followers could be considered dead.

Religion and the religious conception of God have nothing to do with that though.

No one ever wins this argument why have it everyday?

Why would you assume sophistication requires forethought and planning? Especially when (in terms of the amount of matter available in the universe) that sophistication is both anomalous and provincial? If life were everywhere I'd agree with you but at the moment it seems like a rarity.

In other words, given enough space and enough time anything can happen at least once.

Philosophy is so fucking stupid. How can I know that rationality will lead me to truth? Using reason and logic to answer this before their validity is established is circular logic. Trusting in your own cognition is like trusting your lawyer because he says he can be trusted. You may feel like you have no choice but to trust him, but he could easily fuck you in the ass.

If you can't trust your own cognition, there is nothing else. Even Christians argue logical reason (logos) comes from God and derive trust of their logical functions that way.

You are opening the door to madness.

Billions of "followers" who go to church maybe once a year. The devout ones end up bombing shit. Truly, you have established a brethren for the ages! ... whilst at the same time schisming yourself from all modern political policy making because none of you can fight the black hand of secularism.

Go form another heresy.

You know that random mutation isn't truly random right? It's some factor inherent in DNA, but it has a limit.

You'd have an infinite regression of creators if there was no uncreated creator.

Except the universe cannot be eternal because if it had no beginning and would have no end then you'd have to go through an infinite amount of time before you reached the time we are currently living, which is impossible.

>the universe has to be x because it being y doesn't make sense to my tiny mortal brain

Plebs. Are you really going to have these arguments until the end of time?

How so? More absurd than the matter organising itself into unbelievably complex forms? That's pretty absurd compared to thiesm.

Complex for us would be nothing for God. Why should he make them simple?

>billions of years of evolution behind it
You can't prove that

So inanimate matter organized itself into those unbelievably complex forms? It's harder to believe that than a God

We don't/can't have absolute knowledge so some things must be taken as givens to use reason and logic. These presuppositions are actually pretty important tho must people never talk about them, even tho the presuppositions you have change the conclusions that can be reached using reason and logic.

>Billions of "followers" who go to church maybe once a year. The devout ones end up bombing shit.
How can you even make such a claim? There's hardly any christian bombings and you have no idea of the actual statistics of church attendence

That is only hard to believe if you assume presently inanimate matter lacks the capacity to self organise under the right conditions. Clearly evidence exists to indicate that that is not the case and that matter can indeed self organise into some pretty complicated forms. Some that aren't even considered alive. Do complex crystal latices created by dumb chemical interactions require a creator to exist?

The point is that the laws of physics are an open question until the evidence is gathered and analysed. You apriori assume dead matter is incapable of something despite available evidence as justification for your beliefs in a creator when you should do the exact opposite.

Look at the available evidence and THEN draw your conclusions. Don't just assume fundamental laws of the universe because they seem logical to you. The universe is not obligated to adhere to your sense of rationality.

So then you have evidence of this creator?

This reads like a list of bugs for the developers of humanity to fix in the next update

No, because billion offers years can do the same

Are those pickles?