Choosing a faith

I agree that randomness is built into the system but out of that there are probabilities of outcome.However randomness is certainly a feature of our existence and that the future is open.

Just as it is to reject the unevidenced unfalsifiable belief that natural processes were initiated by mindlessly and without intelligent thought. Of course. Just look at spawning salmon. However, as you said it is about our own gene pool and does nothing to explain altruism outside of our gene pool, or for our concern for animals.

I don't pretend to know anything in particular about evolutionary processes. I only know what those evolutionary processes have resulted in. I simply see science being about how the universe and the life in it came to exist, and we keep learning more and more.Yes, there have been those in the past that have used holy books to argue against scientific findings. Sure there have been those who have treated the Bible as a constitution essentially dictated by God. I suggest that is an abuse of the what is in the Bible. The Bible should not be understood that way.

You tell us about it all the time! But here you are still doing it in you're own way.

Nothing.Nothing happens without processes. There had to be something going on prior to T=0. We certainly don't know what processes existed but whatever they were they created what we see as our universe today.As for finding out? Quantum gravity, whatever that turns out to be, may be able to pierce that veil. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. Personally, I don't think we will find out. Not before the hammer drops on our species.

Exactly. That's what the Schrödinger equation is all about. The wave function of the universe. The probabilities of outcomes. Sounds like a Tibetan monk. I don't speak Tibetan monk. Would you translate, please as in ... say what?

Sounds like random words to me.

quote:

---

Just as it is to reject the unevidenced unfalsifiable belief that natural processes were initiated by mindlessly and without intelligent thought.

---

It really isn’t. You can’t even justify the claim that it is unfalsifiable. And not making things up is always more rational than making things up and believing them.If you want to make a claim to rationality then being irrational undermines it completely. You need to learn that.

quote:

---

Of course. Just look at spawning salmon.

---

Well that is progress of a sort.

quote:

---

However, as you said it is about our own gene pool and does nothing to explain altruism outside of our gene pool, or for our concern for animals.

---

And you’re still wrong. Living in a society that offers mutual aid and support will benefit your gene pool - if you do your part. Really, skim reading without understanding, just looking for excuses to prop up your beliefs is not a valid form of study - and shows no concern for the truth.

The atheist doesn't have to believe, though.You don't have any red squares.
The atheist has millions and millions and millions of green circles of evidence showing us that life is a result of natural processes. So - it's quite possible to have natural-processes be the answer to "why" questions about the universe we find ourselves in.
Not only that, we have millions and millions and millions of "why" questions answered by natural processes (green circles.)
And not a single answer for anything at all (why or when or where or who or what or how) answered by any religion of any kind (red squares.)Looking for a red square is based on belief.
Expecting another green circle based on the millions and millions and millions of previous green circles indicating that the next answer will also be another green circle - is based on evidence.Basing our answer on belief is historically known to be wrong almost every time.
Basing our answer on evidence is historically known to be right almost every time. But, that didn't have to be the case. We don't know what's in the bag. It's quite possible we investigated the sun and found Apollo pulling it across the sky (would have been a red square.) It's quite possible we investigated the global flood and found that it's true and we all share heritage from the new starting point after the flood and this is impossible without divine intervention (would have been a red square.) It's quite possible we investigated the exodus and found that it's true and that manna really did fall from the heavens due to divine intervention (would have been a red square.)Then, we would have investigated the material world and found non-material answers.But - this didn't happen.
We went looking for red squares. But found nothing but green circles. It's evidence that red square don't exist, and the only think that exists is green circles.

So the first process came into existence out of nothing. Just wondering how you think we'll know then.

I have come to believe that God created an exitance with randomness but using high probabilities. That was after reading a book called Freedom All the Way Up by Chris Barrigar. It's not that hard. We know that there is randomness in the world and with that comes free will and an open future.

How does donating to a cause dedicated to the survival of elephants in Africa benefit my gene pool?

ou tell us about it all the time!No I don't. I merely quote basic concepts as written by those who do understand it. I understand the Bible as 66 different books written in context of different times and cultures and by a wide assortment of people.

Maybe. Maybe not. No one knows.I'm sure you would like to recommend something. That would be in keeping with your need for heartfelt fantasy to explain deep human ignorance. Maybe quantum gravity (or something else) will show us what is on the other side of T=0. If so, it may not show "The Beginnings Of Everything," but just another emergent magisterium with its own reality.If a major consensus of the experts comes out to say "Yes, this is the answer to T=0," then we will know, tentatively (as with all things science). If such strong undeniable evidence is not shown then there will be no consensus. We will not know, yet, and the studies will continue.

What does it mean to "use high probabilities"? Betting up after a run of low cards?You are semantically reaching again. How does random create/equate to free will? What do you mean by an 'open' future? What's the alternative?