Other than evolution, what other conceivable options do atheists have to explain the existence of humans?

Question

If there are no other conceivable options, does that mean an atheist is forced to believe that evolution is true based on their underlying assumption that there is no God?

Isn't this circular reasoning?

-

Answer 1

I don't know that the atheist is forced to believe in evolution, but I expect that many atheists may well conclude that if God doesn't exist, some form of evolution is the only realistic alternative.

I believe there are some people who believe that extraterrestrial beings - aliens - created us and/or put us here. Far fetched, perhaps, but I guess when one takes a moment to consider possibilities without any bias, it's not much stranger than the other options we've come up with.

But then, where did the aliens come from?

Is it feasible to question the existence of humans separately from the existence of anything else? I cannot personally reason that way. If I question how humans came to exist, I also simultaneously question how anything and everything at all came to exist, which leaves me with no other choice but to ponder the debate between God or the "big bang."

When considering that ultimate question, I always end up with the same thought - if a supreme entity could have ever existed prior to the existence of the universe and life as we know it, then I see no reason why it isn't exactly equally possible that existence could have simply always been there.

If God could be infinite, without beginning, the universe could be infinite, without beginning. If God at some point existed in a vacuum, and then created the universe and life, then I cannot discount the possibility that some minute speck of energy, or matter, or what have you, may have also existed in a vacuum and somehow exploded into the universe.

Perhaps the two are one and the same.

Perhaps the speck in the vacuum exploded, creating the universe in a rudimentary form, and also creating energy that coalesced into a God, or gods, or aliens, or something which then took the universe as his or her or their plaything, and molded it and created sentient beings to watch over or forget or experiment with.

I don't know, I'll never know. It's interesting to think about, but I find it fruitless to ponder it too much.

Answer 2

"Other than evolution"? A neat example of the speed with which evolution can be observed to operate is provided by Kettlewell's studies of peppered moths in England - see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/icon.cr.html

Even if evolution were discounted, which it won't be unless educational institutions bow to pressure from creationists (rather than sticking to their guns), how on earth does that then support the existence of god? If we had no idea how humans came to exist, the logical outcome would NOT be that God must have done it. The logical outcome would be, quite simply, that we would not know. It would NOT mean that we we would be compelled to choose an explanation provided for us thousands of years ago in the Bible. That step just does not logically follow. There are plenty of things which we do not yet know (and perhaps never will), but that does not mean that it automatically and logically follows that your god was the cause or the explanation for it.

Even if there were no scientific explanation for the existence of humans (and all other life forms, incidentally), surely you must agree that there is equally no scientific evidence for the existence of your god.

I am not forced to "believe" that evolution is true based on an underlying assumption that your god does not exist. I was educated to respect the power of the scientific method when I was a child, concurrently with being brought up in a religious environment. I accepted the theory of evolution based on my powers of reason and at the time did believe in your god. So my acceptance of the theory of evolution is not in any way based on an underlying assumption that your god does not exist. Incidentally, did you know that Charles Darwin was a believer who studied theology at Cambridge? He did however later come to think of himself as an agnostic, but the point remains: his theory of evolution was not predicated on the non-existence of your god.
So, there are believers who accept the theory of evolution (see DuckPhup's excellent answer for an explanation as to the exact nature of scientific theories) and on the other hand, there may well be those who deny the existence of your god but do not accept or understand the theory of evolution.

Your argument is specious and fallacious. There is no circular reasoning.

PS: alieninthehills, please do google "walking catfish" as DuckPhup suggests. You may be surprised. See also http://128.227.186.212/fish/Gallery/Descript/WalkingCatfish/WalkingCatfish.html

Answer 3

Evolution is currently the only theory as to how humans came to be. Therefor, yes, atheists and any science minded person will accept this as the reason for humans. I guess there are other options that are conceivable, but don't have any evidence.

For example, what if we are a science experiment? There might be a life form so advanced, it can create extremely complex things, like our universe. And we are nothing more then a science experiment done by a child.

Answer 4

Q1: the place did all the ninety-plus components (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How became it desperate how many bonds each factor might have for combining with different components? How do you clarify the precision interior the layout of the climate, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus? the place did the loads of compounds we hit upon interior the international come from—carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.? while did those compounds improve from the climate—until eventually now the enormous bang, for the time of the enormous bang, after the enormous bang? A1: no longer something to do with evolutiion in any respect. Q2: Why do books on evolution, alongside with grade college, severe college and faculty textbooks, no longer comprise such significant, undemanding information? A2: because of the fact evolution describes the substitute over the years in livng organisms, it doesn`t say something approximately minerals. Q3: How did existence improve from non-existence? A3: Abiogenesis describes that, no longer evolution. q4: How did the middle, lungs, abdomen, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. improve interior the 1st animal by ability of slow, minute steps and the animal proceed to exist jointly as those transformations have been going on? A4: substitute over the years, it particularly is very undemanding to comprehend. Q5: The previous factors point out that evolution couldn’t take place, and the fossil checklist exhibits that it didn’t take place! A5: rubbish! Q6: AEF how do you recognize that i don't comprehend evolution in case you probably did no longer take it slow to even study something i published? (sic) A6: because you secure minerals for a initiate!

Answer 5

first of all, atheism and evolution are not mutually exclusive terms. There are plenty from all paths (including Christianity) who realize evolution is the best explanation going.

next, I can't pretend to speak for atheists, let alone all atheists, but it is certainly possible that there are atheists who just don't care how we got here.

next, if I were an atheist, and I did not find evolution acceptable (or, more likely, I did not understand it), I might concoct my own working theory, but lacking any proof, or expertise in the subject areas necessary to test my ideas, I might keep my big mouth shut rather than give ammo to any side.

and lastly, the most unlikely: there could hypothetically be atheists out there who do have proof an an alternate method (i.e. alien colonization), but choose not to share it. This is far-fetched, of course, but no more than certain middle eastern creation myths.

Answer 6

Meteor from outer space carrying a few bacteria or carbon based amoebas? Aliens?

I really don't know, but guess what? It's ok to say "I don't know." I don't need to blame it on a supernatural creature because I don't understand. "Goddunnit" is and continues to be extremely lazy, limited, and fear-based thinking.

It's not circular because a. there is a heck of a lot of evidence for it being valid and factual (hence, I believe in facts and truth, not hold a belief to be true cuz my tummy feels weird when I think about things that freak me out) b. if evolution did not exist, I still wouldn't believe in a deity...I would say I DON'T KNOW...just like you have to when I ask "What made god?" because no one knows what happened before the Big Bang, or in your opinion, what happened before your god made all this with a few thoughts.

Answer 7

Other than gravity, what other conceivable options do people who don't believe in invisible space lizards have to explain why the moon orbits the earth?

If there are no other conceivable options, does that mean people who don't believe there are space lizards pushing the moon forced to believe that gravity is true based on their underlying assumption that are no space lizards?

Isn't this circular reasoning?

Answer 8

And Thiests aren't forced into believing that god created the universe and the existance of humans? Athests do not believe in anything, by definition. We balance the evidence, and then come up with the best explanation upon the evidence. Evidence is constantly changing as are Atheists beliefs. We are not constricted to any one theory, unlike Theists.

Answer 9

Another possibility is that everything we see spontaneously assembled by pure dumb luck 5 minutes ago, including our memories.

The reasoning isn't circular, since there is positive evidence for evolution. It isn't simply the result of rejecting gods.

Answer 10

Evolution is not a matter of 'belief'. I keep reading in here that "... evolution is just a theory... not a fact." That, as it turns out, is true... although the word 'just' is inappropriate, and misleading... and it indicates that people just don't understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that a theory is just an 'idea'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments (to validate 'predicted' results), they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they're WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing.

In science, 'theories' occupy a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time (evolves). The theory identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for such changes:

** Genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.

** Natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

There are a few important things to know about biological 'evolution'...

* DNA does NOT evolve... it experiences mutations (random).

* Organisms DO NOT evolve. Organisms are essentially the 'proxies' for altered DNA, playing out the 'game' of survival/procreation in 'meat space'. DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round... kind of like Jeopardy. This is where 'natural selection' plays out. 'Survival of the fittest'... a term invented by a British newspaperman... NOT a scientist... is a complete misrepresentation of the concept of 'natural election'. It implies (and is usually interpreted to mean) faster, stronger, smarter, etc... able to take, rather than share. But what 'natural selection REALLY means is something like better camouflage... slightly better tolerance for arid conditions... a new protein that permits the use of a food source that was previously toxic to the organism... the ability of an animal to run slightly faster than its neighbor, so that it's the neighbor that gets caught and eaten by the predator... not him... etc. THAT is 'natural selection'... ANYTHING that increases the STATISTICAL PROBABILITY that an organism will survive long enough to procreate... and that is ALL that it means.

* It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the 'gene pool') that 'evolves' (changes, over time)... NOT the organisms themselves. The foolish cartoon-version of evolution that christian/creationist puppet-masters describe to their flocks is pretty much one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.... lies such as "Evolutionists claim that an ape gave birth to the first human."

There may be OTHER mechanisms in play which have not yet been identified and accounted for, and various scientists continue to quibble about that... but NONE of what I have described above is in dispute within the scientific community. Claims to the contrary by creationists are nothing more than a red herring, designed to bamboozle their scientifically-ignorant constituency... which is VERY easy to do. That's what happens when your 'trusted' sources are professional liars whose livlihood depends on keeping their 'flock' (sheeple) steeped in gullibility, self-delusion, ignorance and irrationality.

So, no... it is NOT 'circular reasoning'. Believing that what is in a book is 'true' because what is in the book says the book is 'true' is circular reasoning.


alieninthehills... google for 'walking catfish'
.