I see the handiwork of God everywhere in nature

>I see the handiwork of God everywhere in nature.
>ackshually nature is just atoms and evolution lol checkmate owned
>being utterly unable to distinguish between how life occurs and that it does

How fucking autistic are fedoras and positivists?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell
youtube.com/watch?v=QOCaacO8wus
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Well, go on, let's see all your proof for God's existence.

>still being utterly unable to distinguish between how the universe is and that it is

AUTISM
U
T
I
S
M

where did the first cell come from oh great and noble Veeky Forums poster

It's called protocell research.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell

Nothing magical about it.

>STILL being utterly unable to distinguish between how life emerges and that it does

jesus christ

what the hell are you on about

How life physically emerges is not as important as such a thing as life emerging in the first place, so dismissing spiritual awe in the presence of nature by pointing out it's just atoms says nothing about nothing. Nothing about materialism constrains me to be skeptical of an intelligence in nature

There's isn't anything inherently special or spiritual about life. It's thermodynamically favourable reactions, get over yourself.

Nothing about the concept of thermodynamical reactions forces me to accept a nihilistic view of life. You are projecting this bleak meaninglessness on what is meaning-neutral, on what is only supposed to be the substrate for meaning.

And then God said...

Well, I mean, then the Bible said that God said...

Well, technically, I mean, then the 1st series of the Bible and the 2nd series of the Bible, but not all of the 1st series of the Bible that I believe in said that God said...

Well, actually, the edited version of all of what I just said mentioned. You know? The version that dumbs it down to "modern" English.

Well, huh, I mean it was translated to English too.

And, someone translated those scripts...

And they were kind of put together by some other people and were found randomly..

I suppose the Bible could have been edited or some pages that were not supposed to be there could have slipped in (probably the reason I don't like the 1st series so much)...

And... THAT is why I see God in everything I look at! How could you deny it????

Lol, I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm telling you how life works. You don't have to accept that, per se, but you'd be wrong not accepting that.
What's so difficult to understand about favourable reactions which self propagate that can eventually lead to complex systems.
I'm not going to lie about the complexity of the problem, because it's extremely difficult to grasp how you come from basic chemical groups like amino acids, fatty acids, sugars and nucleotides and form them into these macromolecular systems, but that's basically it. It's a self propagating machine which was formed through countless favourable thermodynamical reactions. Enzymes/ribozymes are such a sweet tool nature has provided to aid life in this.
So again, please get over yourself. It's not because you feel like this nihilism is a bad thing, that it actually is. Get something else from living your life other than pondering about life, please.

There is nothing about self-regulating complex systems built up out of simple rules that affects a spiritual view of life and the world. How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself dude

So define a fucking spiritual view of life and the world then, you inane fucking shitter.
Why do you post here if you don't want these answers?
Spirituality is NOT science and it is completely tangential with it. They do not even overlap in the slightest. So why ARE YOU HERE?

To shit on goobers like you who think emergence theory and finding inspiration in nature are mutually exclusive

Different user.

Eh, other than your title, you ended up seeming more rational than I was expecting.

Almost all threads like this are boogie man threads about magic and God of the gaps.

I guess it depends on your definition of spirituality and God.

I literally said it was't in the post you answered to, you dumbass lol
>Wowowowo look at how beautiful life is and how it works, it's almost transcending its physical properties in its beauty.
Well yes, it almost does. But shut the fuck up about shit that is completely off topic.

>still thinking I'm arguing for some supernatural factor in nature

You are one dumb ass fucking nigger

Damn you're dense. I totally am not you fucking retard. Read what I'm typing. Where does beauty relate to a "supernatural force"?
Learn some decent reading skills before you respond next time, please.
It's sad to see you argue with someone that agrees with you, but you're too dense to realize it.

>handiwork of god
>inspiration
Hmm seems looks you're backtracking. Clearly emergence is at odds with an image of designed nature. And one can just as easily be inspired by the emergence of order.

I won't tip my fedora to you, you are unworthy of my higher intellect

>I see the handiwork of God everywhere in nature.
ppl who say such things are the christian equivalent of fedoras

>you need to believe in the supernatural to appreciate the beauty of reality

Fucking retard stop putting words in my mouth.

Literally addressed in the OP. The universe designs itself. That principle is God. It doesn't matter if it's emergence, it's the fact that emergence still occurs that's the issue here

Take your strawman back to

>assuming beliefs based on personal experience
>no evidence do back shit up

were all schizophrenic here

You still don't fucking get it. Wow, I can't believe you didn't understand that sentence after reading it again. However, you're not addressing spirituality at all to be honest, nor are you addressing inspiration that comes from looking at nature (through whatever means that is).
You're simply making an overarching statement that the universe is God. Wow. Good job. You managed to convey your stupid juvenile insight in only 20 or so post with people fishing for more clarity. Good job on staying vague. I guess that's why you were vague, though, because your insight literally means nothing.

Good enough for Spinoza, good enough for me. Depth is what you bring to it retard.

>I'm happy with living my life the way it and the thing that encumpasses us all I shall call God.
Why are you on the science board when you're not willing to understand/find out how it works.
Go paint something irrelevant, you waste of space.

For that you need to define what life even is.
Here is something more on... your level
youtube.com/watch?v=QOCaacO8wus

>God and an understanding of how the system works are mutually exclusive


Brainlets everywhere

>still can't explain the origin of all life in the universe
Lol @atheism

>Implying implications
Why are you posting here, is my overarching narrative, you dumb fuck.
You've been busy with a non-topic for the entire time, and the entire time I'm wondering when you're actually going to come with something that's of value, but the expectations stay unfulfilled. Good job contributing science related topic on Veeky Forums, though!

>the universe designs itself
Sure, if by "design" you mean "doesn't design" and by "god" you mean "not god."

Good job retard, you threw a tantrum over made up semantics that only serve to obscure meaning so that you can feel good.

>still tries to explain the origin of all life in the universe with a children's story
Lol @theism

>still a@ssumes I'm religious @nd not just god
>still @ssumes science h@s @nswers to @nything in this thre@d.
Lol @@theism

Well, then you don't really understand atheism. I tell people I am an aleprechaunist, because it makes just as much sense to have a stupid label like that as it does to have a stupid label like atheism.

I shouldn't have to explain that I don't believe in fairies or a giant Jewish fairy dubbed God.

That doesn't mean that I am claiming that I know how the universe was created.

It just means that I think it is nonsense that theists assume that they do know.

I think you're missing the point here. I'm being satirical about atheists and theists because neither have even an inkling of a spec of a hint of knowledge on why life came about. The whole topic is off limits unless you're an open minded individual who can speak without shitting in the ears of others as if your poorly thought-out opinions mean anything in the endless void of time. My suggestion would be to cultivate ideas rather than to target a different particular group of other misguided retards. Grow up about religion and realize that these people have the exact same level of understanding about the meaning of life as you do.

Also, I've been seeing posts about life being nothing more than the chance combination of molecules to form molecules that self replicate. That, to me, is just as foolish as saying a god did it. Not only are the odds immensely low, they're also, by today's scientific level, impossible. There was no way, by any feasible chemical reaction of the known elements, that life should have ever come up on the universe's to-do list.

>believing in ghosts

Different user
Why is it so hard to accept that given enough time, chemicals can form molecules and these molecules can form more complicated molecules? Do you have any idea how fucking old the universe is? Don't you know that if something is possible, given enough time, it should happen at least once?
It's not even random chance; it was a statistical inevitability that you exist at all. And whenever anyone tries to explain that to you you just get upset that nobody wants to think you're special. Get the fuck over yourself.

>an answer that's definitely wrong is better than no answer
Sure is bronze-age in here

You don't get points for not putting an answer down on a test

You don't get points for the completely wrong answer either.
You do, however, get points for an answer that's well thought out and contains at least pieces of the answer.

you also don't get points for smearing shit all over the page and calling it a right answer

So can you explain how that scenario plays out because modern science can't. You just saying its a random freak occurrence doesn't actually hold any water because science can't validate that that occurrence can actually occur. I can't tell if you're memeing me right now or if you actually believe you know how life got its start.

In any situation, guess how many points you're awarded.

I'm going to go really slow because you might have brain damage and I don't want to lose you.

Once upon a time there was a big bang. Everything was quarks.
Then the quarks turned into hydrogen and maybe helium
One day there were these things called 'stars'
All stars turn hydrogen into helium
Some stars are big enough to turn helium into heavier elements.
Over time, the universe began to accumulate heavier and heavier elements.
Occasionally these elements condensed into rocky planets
Some of these planets had the right ratio of chemicals for the chemicals to spontaneously combine into organic molecules
These molecules were not "alive" but they affected their environment in such a way so as to promote similar molecules to begin to exist.
This is called 'replication'.
After a REALLY LONG TIME a molecule now known as "RNA" formed. It replicated.
After another _REALLY LONG TIME_ RNA began to form DNA.
And after another _excruciatingly long period of time_ two DNA-based lifeforms fucked and had a kid. It grew up to post stupid deist threads on Veeky Forums and argue with materialists who know infinitely more than him about abiogenesis.

neither situation awards you any points
but choosing a wrong answer or a mystifying answer embarrasses you. You should avoid that unless you enjoy people calling you a retard.

45 posts in and this dumb nigger retard still doesn't get the argument in the OP. Kill yourself jfc

The position of the empiricist isn't "I can explain everything" so much as it's "I do not accept truths that cannot be observed." He doesn't have to provide a competing hypothesis to deny yours, because he can accept not having a well-formed hypothesis. To a question like "where did life come from?", the only proper answer you can expect to get is "we're working on figuring it out." You almost fundamentally can't argue metaphysical ideas with an empiricist because an empiricist necessarily won't accept metaphysical arguments as valid arguments.

there is no argument in the OP, only your impotent autistic screeching
>hurr emergent properties of chemical reactions are somehow separate from chemical reactions hurrr
There is absolutely no reason to believe this, and there's absolutely no reason for me to feel offended when you call me a fedora or a positivist, because the alternative is apparently being a moron.
You are a chemical reaction. I can prove you are, and you can't prove that you aren't. I know how you got here and you don't. You want to know WHY you're here but there's no answer to that question. There is only a how. The universe is mechanistic; I suggest you get used to it.

Look at it this way. Somebody in his position isn't denying that that's what's going on. It's questioning what's below it. Like whatever 'force" or "quality" makes things exist to begin with or follow the particular rules we observe. It's being in awe of the quality of existence itself.

Its effectively a barrier against the bleakness of nhillism while simultaneously accepting nhillism.

STILL doesn't get it. Holy fucking lol my sides

>Arbitrarily naming something "God" to feel better about yourself.
I called my shit God the other day. Doesn't make it true.
I'm not really a fan of these ridiculous mind games and what not. If you have legitimate evidence, I advise you present it.
I'm waiting for you to become famous for having evidence for God.
>Inb4 accused of neckbeardery

>How fucking autistic are fedoras and positivists?

11/10

...

I see an acolyte of the Cult of Banging Small Things Together has arrived.

Hey, genius. Everything is fields, and fields are not particles.

Not him, but its what frustrates me about Veeky Forums sometimes with their limited view of spirituality. Atheism, skepticism, and rationality can perfectly coexist. Hell, you can even fit certain forms of pantheism in there. Its just very different from the bullshit new-age spirituality or christian spirituality, which is all most people have had any experience with.

Not necessarily.

If you believe God is the reason cousin Lenny won the (clearly random) lottery, you can also believe that God influenced the random outcomes of evolution.

Or you can just say "well he's omniscient and infinitely intelligent, so he just created the universe with the specific start conditions that would lead to the eventual evolution of trees that turn pretty colors in fall"

Don't worry brah. I know exactly what you mean. Though its an oddly difficult concept to explain.

People looked around them and asked what it was that is responsible for all this beauty and complexity. It turns out they are an emergent phenomenon arising out of the basic interactions of a handful of fundamental particles. That this is the case, that this happens, I choose to call God and in fact is worthy of being called God, because as the good, beauty, truth etc. are ideas that necessarily distinguish themselves in the process of a conscious organisms life, then there is a principle of these things innate to the universe. Are you slow or what? How fucking hard is this to understand?

How's it feel knowing another human being can objectively see you seem to be constitutionally incapable of grasping this concept and that it's funny af?

What if I told you that I understand your concept but simply do not agree and choose nihilism instead?

I'd say you've got a long way to go on the path.

>why life came about
>meaning of life
You assume there is such a thing when there is no evidence or reason to think so. You are criticizing atheists for an assumption only you are making.

Then you completely invalidate yourself by making shit up about angiogenesis being impossible. Truly laughable. Stop projecting.

I'd rather stay on the shoreline than walk slowly into the ocean, thank you.

You mention "favorable reactions" a lot. This is the important part here. Is the cause of everything found within random movements of atoms and particles at the molecular level, or is there something deeper to those random movements and "favorable reactions"? Living things are some of the most complex systems in the universe, and to completely deny that there is anything behind the creation of these complex systems besides "favorable reactions" is one of the most conceited and presumptuous statements I have ever heard.

Conceited and presumptuous, perhaps, but ultimately correct
Unless, of course, you have a better idea.

Because God has a connotation associated with Judaeo-christian faith, which comes with a ton of baggage of awful shit that has nothing to do with the emergent complexities of nature.

>Living things are some of the most complex systems in the universe
[Citation needed]

That's fine, and I get that, but is it so much to ask for people to have an idea of the divine that extends beyond the judeo-Christian concept?

There's obviously a disconnect here in people's opinions of what is important and what us not. You don't like his concept (or any concept) of god because the very root of the concept is unanswerable. Because there will never be tangible evidence for or against a god, then you find the question to be unworthy of thought, since a concrete answer will never be found. You cannot fathom the existence of anything in which solid, tangible evidence cannot be found, and that is just the way you are. And that's OK, as long as you realize that there are things that you do not know about and things that you will never understand, and are not rude when people want to debate or provide their solution to the unanswerable.

It's not a statement concerning any form of empirical data or anything, honestly more of an opinion because you can't measure the complexity of stuff at that point. Besides, in refuting what I said, are you trying to say that life isn't complex, or just make a witty retort that adds nothing to the discussion and doesn't argue against anything nontrivial that I said?

>the brain isn't complex

You're retarded right?

>it's another "god has no proof, all you need is faith" threads
>pretty good b8, seems to have gotten a few newfags

kys if you fall for this weakshit b8

This desu

God is a clockmaker, and the universe was made and wound by him, and now it ticks without his intervention

It's not conceited and presumptuous that you made the statement, rather than you cannot comprehend that you could be wrong, which you further proved in your reply. What I'm bothered by is your arrogance on a question that goes way deeper than yourself and your own knowledge and intelligence, and your refusal to accept that the answer could be more complicated than you understand. On that note, your opinion is not invalid, but it is just that: your opinion. Neither you nor those who believe in a higher power have any real evidence. You think you do, but the evidence you have simply disproves people like creationists who believe the earth is 2000 years old, and nobody here is saying anything absurd like that or agreeing with any of the equally absurd stuff that religion claims to be true.

You idiot, we have NO idea how a brain works, it is one of the most complex systems we know of. We can posit how to make Stars, planets, every inanimate machine can be broken down.

But the brain, and the emergence of life from nothing, are almost complete mysteries. We have yet to build either ourselves.

To the "favorable reactions" guy - biological systems are incredibly ordered, and unstable, they require a constant input of energy to maintain their level of entropy. How could "favorable reactions" lead to such order in thand face of entropy? Especially without design.

Yup.

You missed how supposed matter was formed for 'big bang' and how quarks formed/appeared

What's beyond the cosmic horizon ?
Why are our constant laws of physics constant ?

You can't contemplate the uncontemplatable and an infinite amount of questions are still unanswerable beyond science and our 3D perception of reality

I also don't have proof that you are a complete faggot. Doesn't make it any less true in the end.