<p>Although cosmogenesis is not presently clear to the scientist (although current theory is infinitely more plausible than the baseless multitude of contradicting primitive explanations), there is a biological justification for the latter four points. I will contribute an elaboration of such shortly to further derail theological claims.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this something cannot proceed from nothing claim is fatally undermined by the concept of the Casimir effect and the corresponding cosmogenetic conjecture that the universe is a macroscopic display of a quantum-mechanical vacuum fluctuation, which is mathematically and conceptually tenable. Unfortunately, we are not yet situated at the technological frontier to test such a theory.</p>
<p>Stating that the something coming from nothing is derived from supernatural force merely creates an infinite regress and is fundamentally unsound and discardable on logical grounds since the proposed agency of creation is as just in need of an explanation as the original difficulty. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, hahalolk, given humanity’s gullibility regarding supernatural matters and the biases and chimeras that universally constitute nearly every individual’s mental development, humans are genetically inclined to believe just about anything. (Again, I will develop this point further in a future post.)</p>
<p>The sad part is that Raëlism’s foundational basis holds the same degree of justification as those of all other religions with contradicting viewpoints. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the parallel is completely valid to expose the puerility of the entire religious framework since one cannot substantiate cloud-dwelling, thunderbolt-wielding deities any more than one can validate their own conception. </p>
<p>Why is the Flying Spaghetti Monster any less credible than your own supernatural conception? It is not any less logical than endowing universal origins to your own deity. </p>
<p>Are you that imperceptive to your hopelessly defective outlook?</p>
<p>Regarding your “i am god” claim? Yes, that holds the same lack of validity as any other claim regarding a supernatural existence. (But take comfort that your truth-claim is fundamentally on the same level of tenability.) The logical and empirical methods of refuting such (your alleged divinity) are equivalent to those that have been introduced thus far. In truth, there is an infinite degree of equally non-credible claims that may be advanced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The concept of such isn’t any less plausible than the Christian god, Aphrodite, Krishnan, Molech, invisible pink unicorns, or any other notional image.</p>
<p>I will not do that as long as my beliefs continue to be mocked.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have the same view of the claims that humans are just molecules running towards maximum entropy, that such wonders as symbiosis and winged flight arose from random mutation, or that science can explain to paradox of existence. However, because some people hold these views strongly, I am willing to consider and debate them. I will not simply mock them and brush them aside.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A look at history will show that people with my POV got us well past the Dark Ages.</p>
<p>What has the lack of my POV contributed to science? What can we do that is based on Naturalism? All it has given us is a bunch of ideas about things that may have happened in the past. So far it has done precious little to help us predict the future.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but computers are an area in which I have some expertise. The analogy is: a computer is a mechanism which accepts input and returns responses. The computer’s responses are entirely determined by the input it recieved. According to Naturalism, the human brain works the same way. If so, there is no way to confirm that the human brain is “wired” to return the “true” response to a given set of impulses. In fact, there is no sense in calling one response “true” and another “false”, as both simply are.</p>
<p>That is a statement. How can you prove it true? How do we know that the interpretations a brain forms are “true”? After all, that is just another interpretation itself. If your brain interprets things in one way, and my brain interprets things in another, what grounds are there for calling one interpretation “true” and the other “false”?</p>
<p>The average atheist does more than just “conform to a moral code”. Most of the actually believe that their code is “right” and that those who do not conform to it are “wrong”.</p>
<p>Again, please do elaborate. But be careful that you address my specific beliefs, and not a strawman “religion”, because otherwise I will probably just say “Yes, I agree. Now back to the argument.”</p>
<p>The idea that the natural laws of the universe exist without a cause is just as illogical. The idea that atoms and quantum waves act the way they do because they “just do” is of equal logical value to the claim that they do because “god makes them do it”. I consider the second choice to be more reasonable given my experiences in the world, but neither can be proven or disproven by logic.</p>
<p>None of those things require god to consist of matter and energy, or to be bound by natural laws. If he is the reason the laws exist at all, then nothing is more reasonable than to assume that he can break them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We could find an infinite number of explanations for “ineffable” phenomena, and we would still be left with the exact same dilemma of what caused explanations to exist at all.</p>
<p>If that case they are not actually “something from nothing”, but merely “something from another something which was previously thought to be nothing”.</p>
<p>What grounds do you have to call them “incorrect” or “inappropriate”, if they are just the result of my brain’s interpretation of stimuli, which happens to differ from your brains interpretation of other stimuli?</p>
Interpretation was rather a key concept in that post.</p>