Question for Atheists?????

Question

Please give me your thoughts; In a completly Natural Material Universe, all is made up of Atoms, in their various configurations. (Bottom Line) Now, a man in the desert pauses and ponders the billions of stars above him. He forms an opinion as to their purpose (or lack thereof). Now, what has just happened? In a totally Material Natural Universe, you have one set of Atoms (specifically, his brain) having an opinion (a value judgement) about ANOTHER set of Atoms (the stars). Does this make "common sense" to you? Is it reasonable? What if anything, does this prove about you (or me)? I believe very strongly that it DOES prove something. If you think deeply enough about it. I'm not going to say what, until the question is over. Then I'll put the answer in the "detail section". What are your thoughts on this? This is a serious question. I'm looking for serious answers. Atheists always say that they know how to think clearly. So, lets see some good, serious answers.

Well, so far, after 5 answers, not ONE intellegent answer yet. Oh well, the night is still young. c'mon guys. You Atheists CANT be this shallow. At least I hope not.

To NH Baritone: Who says that the only answers I would consider intellegent are ones that agree with my own conclusion? You started off with a very serious, and intellegent answer. And then you ruined it with your edit of personal attacks. I would have liked to have asked you a few questions concerning your actual answer, (I liked the way it was heading) but now I cant. who wants to have discourse with an attacker?.

To those whose answers are just riduculeing the question and/or my own intellegense: Im sorry if you cant see the implications of the problem. But making fun of ME doesnt prove anything. The problem that is posed above is a huge hurdle to leap in a "natural only" universe. I really regret that just because YOU dont see it, you have to turn to insults.

To Dylan H: You want me to share my conclusions, so "you can ridicule it". You've already decided to ridicule it? Your not a little biased, are you?

To Bad Squid: Atoms are the "building blocks" of the Universe. All matter is made up of atoms. C'mon, thats "elementry school" stuff.

To Adam B: The fact that, YOU dont "see the question" here, speaks more to your ability to "think clearly", than mine.

Also P.S. to Dylan H: "Generating patterns of synapses, and is able to make things up", is gobbletygook. It says nothing. Thats like saying, "red is red". Which is true, but explains nothing, and not worth saying.

To Oldschool: I only used "stars" as an example. I could have used anything. And BTW, the fact that they "are beautiful" and show "mans insignificance" is MORE than just facts. Those are VALUE JUDGEMENTS. This says something. And how is the fact that the atoms that "comprise the brain make common sense"? Your assuming your answer.

To Judy: Let me correct you. I suspect that YOU dont know what im talking about. And it has nothing to do with MY religion. It has much to do with what it IMPLIES.

To Dylan: Obvious mistakes? Grammer & spelling, possibly, due to quick typing. Factual? NO. Also, I understand perfectly what a natural universe is. What part of "natural" is diffilcult? Natural means NATURAL. Inherently in and of itself only.

END OF QUESTION: This is of course Descartes re-stated. "I think, therefore,..." Most just are aware of the last five words. But the whole argument is devastating. And never has been satisfactorily answered. "Chemical componds", "neurons", "synopses" "atoms perceiving (love that one)" is just fancy language that cant explain sentience/self awareness arising from non-living/aware matter. It shows the truth of Romans 1:22, "thinking themselves wise, they became fools..." What Descartes statment shows is: We are more than just our bodies. We have to be. The body is just a vechile (sic) for the REAL person to interact with the physical universe. When the body dies it does not mean that sentinent/self-awareness does also. Of course, religion has been saying this for thousands of years. Believing that non-living atoms, chemicals, bits of particles can somehow be "mixed" together, and "presto" self-awareness sentinal self-awareness can arise is nothing more than abbra-cadrabra magic.

Answer 1

This answer can be dealt with on a number of different levels, let me see if I can do a few of them justice:

1. Atomic -- Atoms are, by their very nature, rather tiny particles being orbited by a number of even smaller particles. The particles themselves are surrounded by a "relatively" enormous amount of empty space. Can one atom perceive the other atoms and does it know its purpose amongst the greater compound that it is part of and the function of the greater organism it is part of?

2. Organs -- The atoms in the man, are in fact, smaller parts of a variety of chemical compounds. Those compounds are also organized into a complex series of organs and other necessary chemicals that function, as a whole, as a human being. Are any of those parts, individually, capable of forming an opinion of the being as a whole?

3. Human -- The man, not only a collection of parts, is also a collection of experiences. Has any of those experiences led him to an understanding of what his place is among other human beings and perhaps the Earthly ecosystem as a whole. Does he contemplate his purpose?

4. Stars -- Stars are but particles, surrounded by a myriad of other particles. Largely, though, the particles are minute compared to the amount of empty space between all of them. Is the star aware of its function in the overall universe? Does the star perceive the man on a distant particle and contemplate that man's function in the greater universe? Does that star form an opinion of the man?

It is easy to argue that, on any specific level, most particles are unaware of the part they play in the whole. Is it necessary for the atom to understand that it is part of a chemical compound, that in turn, is part of an organ, that is part of the man, that is part of the ecosystem, that is part of a planet, that is part of a solar system, that is but a blip in the overall universe? I argue, no, it is not necessary that it knows that it is part of a bigger thing, only that it does what it can to make it through another day.

Answer 2

Yes, it demonstrates that the man's brain is capable of generating patterns of synapses, and he is able to make stuff up.

Edit:

Well, that settles it. You're obviously not looking for actual answers here, you just want to insult atheists.

If you have a question, actually ask it without a specific answer in mind.

If you have drawn some conclusion from the information you have given us, please share it with me now, so that I can point out why it's ridiculous.

Edit again:

Of course I'm biased towards ridicule when you speak with poor grammar (only in a couple of places, but it still bothers me that you would insult intelligence when you've made some pretty obvious mistakes), insult anyone who answers your question, and say that sentience disproves a fully natural universe.

That bothers me. At least share /how/ this disproves a fully natural universe, because it seems to me that you don't fully understand what a natural universe is.

Edit edit edit:

First things first, I'm sorry about being a grammar nazi. That was silly of me. I apologize.

*sigh*

If you're not actually going to contribute anything other than insulting the intelligence of others, please stop. Please. I beg of you. You haven't proven anything with your example. Listen to me. Read everything I have written. Please.

Sentience is a specific kind of energy among brain cells, commonly referred to as synapses. These are fully explainable within a completely material universe. End. You have proven nothing. Good day, sir.

Answer 3

I think you need to work on your premise a little bit.

One needn't look at billions of stars to form an opinion, when one can look at and form an opinion of anything, as they all contain atomic and subatomic particles. Stars in a night sky are beautiful and underline the insignificance of man, but grains of sand at the beach are just as infinite and just as atomic. The significant difference is the presence of conscious perception by a living entity.

Of course it makes sense that a set of atoms that comprises a living brain would form an opinion when they see the stars. But this phenomena also occurs when a Lion looks at a herd of wildebeests and forms an opinion along the lines of "well, here's dinner" or "I'm too full right now to deal with them." So where is the tie-in of "common sense" and reasonableness?

It doesn't prove anything about you and me. However, I think your readers might be interested in knowing what you think it proves. Why are athiests necessarily more in a position to ponder this than Christians, who, the last time I checked, also have brains and are quite capable of using them?

Answer 4

Does it matter that the first few thousand years those atoms looked up at these fusion reactors that are light years away were completely wrong?

When a bird looks at the stars to navigate is that a value judgment about the stars or a judgment about where the bird is so that it can find its destination? I'd say the destination is where the 'value' is not the stars themselves, and this is generally in the interest of surviving and breeding.

Man also used the stars for navigation. And as our knowledge grew we also used it for creating calenders and understanding seasons. These value judgments are not about the stars but about how to use the stars to advance our own lives.

Answer 5

You appear to be under the impression that all questions are answerable, that the sum total of all knowledge in the universe is there for the asking.
Well you are wrong. Human knowledge progresses very slowly and there are some things we may never be able to understand but because our brains are still developing it doesn't give us the right to fill in the holes in our knowledge with some imaginary sky god and use a whole philosophy based on this figment of human imagination to control the lives of other people.

Answer 6

You have limited your perspective to matter, as if there were no energy or forces interacting. The universe is made of both matter and energy. The energy interacting between bits of matter and transitioning between matter and energy is the process that can allow us to be material beings that can also have opinions about other material beings.

Bits of matter and energy continuously interact in this universe. It is the question of science whether that will terminate at some point many billions of years in the future. But for our purposes, and to explain our consciousness, we are powered by the energy of more than one star and made up of the material emitted by more than one supernova.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

EDIT: If the only thing you recognize as intelligence is something that agrees with you, then you are more looking for validation than intelligence. Your definition seems so narrow as to leave validity only at the intersection with your opinion. Intelligent people can disagree, and when you pose a riddle-ish question, one that is made up of word games and with your opinion as the sole answer, you sound like you are lacking both comprehensive intelligence and teachable humility.

Answer 7

My thoughts on the subject are thay YOU don't know what you are talking about. However, you think you are being smart. when actually you are just showing your lack of respect for anyone but your own religion. I'm assuming you are going to say it proves god, which it doesn't all it proves is that some guy in the desert is capable of thought.

Answer 8

Atoms are not the only thing the universe is made of.

It does seem extraordinary, but you can clearly see the cause of it -- organisms fighting to survive and ones surviving better for having a sense of reason.

Does the idea of a man in the sky who cares about your sex life sound more plausible?

Answer 9

I think you are trying to say ,that"opinion is not material ,physical" hum?
I don't know anything about brain, sure someone can tell you ,But If we don't know everything ,it's not good reason to response to our lack of knowledge with non-realistic things ,we should say ,Only " we don't know now"

Answer 10

I am not sure that I see an answerable question here. I suggest you think about precisely what you want to ask and try again.

Don't insult us over your inability to think clearly.