Quote (addone @ Jan 10 2026 12:08pm)

This is Paleys watch analogy. It has multiple assumptions built in which in turn create more questions than answers.


1. It is convenient to assume that there was a creator but maybe there wasn't. An intricate watch sitting on top of a heath certainly indicates there was a creator because to arrange all the atoms in such complexity manner within such a short amount of time requires someone or something intelligent. But we are talking about a vast universe billions, trillions or infinite amount of time to create us out of basic building blocks. Maybe it took several trillion years to form water molecules, another several trillion to create basic single cell organisms then very slowly build all the other components. Remember it took us only a few thousand years from living in mud huts to flying in space and ability to make human clones in our likeness.

2. Lets assume there was a creator of some kind. What or who are they? Is it Buddha, Allah, Brahman, maybe we are a byproduct of some distant super advanced civilization that visited earth from another star system aka aliens. Or thousands of other equally plausible origin stories.

3. Who or what created the creator? They can't come out of nothing which creates an infinite loop of questions

4. If you argue the creator was already here then I can counter with the planets and all the building blocks that make life possible have also always existed.

5. Why must we answer the origin of the human race right now? Why can't it remain in the "some things don't have an explanation or need one" box. How did the tree fall in the forrest. Maybe it was too old, maybe it was the wind, someone pushed it maybe there are magic elves in the forrest. Perhaps at this current time and our technology we cannot answer these questions until we do for certain let's not fill the box with "our particular magic man did it" speculations.

Quote (majorblood @ Jan 11 2026 10:38am)

whats your epistemic justification for reason?

Quote (SP00K @ Jan 11 2026 10:46am)

1. Read “the logic of chance” by Eugene koonin
2. Read the Bible
3. See 2 (specifically genesis 1:1)
4. Cool, you have achieved faith now choose where you place it.
5. You don’t have to. There is nothing wrong with you waiting around for an answer that appeases you personally. No idea why you thought otherwise.

Quote (addone @ Jan 10 2026 02:36pm)

Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence not "this book told me."
I would require a multiple peer reviews, physical proof that can be replicated not just personal anecdotes.
Reason requires sound logic not "you don't know everything"

Imagine you are in court in front of a panel of judges and each one has to be satisfied before making a verdict. The judges are logic, forensic evidence, other religions, common sense, science, historian, a linguist and lastly my own senses.

This world is full of cheap stories and intricate lies. One must guard against such deceptions and put them under a microscope.

Quote (addone @ Jan 10 2026 04:53pm)

1. What was a chance of us going to space several thousand years ago when people didn't have much of a concept of outer space to begin with and were living in mud huts? Infinite time = infinite amount of possibilities I dont need to read a whole book to know how probabilities work.
2. I did wasn't impressed full of contradictions and offers no proof other than "trust me bro"
3. See 2
4. This is not faith or confirmation of any kind it's simply a counter example to inb4 question
5. You need to expand on this because no idea what you are trying to say here.

Quote (majorblood @ Jan 11 2026 11:55am)

you would require a peer review study to have a justification of reason itself?

peer review presupposes reason, making the entire process of peer review require reason already.


you ask for "physical proof" of reason... can you find reason under a microscope?

how about "truth" whats your epistemic justification for truth, can we find truth under a microscope?

such as "1 + 1 = 2" - the truth of this statement can we find it in a particular set of matter under a microscope or is the ontological status of truth universal and immaterial

Quote (SP00K @ Jan 11 2026 12:40pm)

1. So you believe things can be infinite via faith. Very cool me too.
2. Cope
3. See 2
4. This seems to contradict 1
5. Your argument implied that Christians are content with “knowingly the origins of humanity while atheists are still looking for answers. That’s fine if you do that.

Quote (AgFarmer427 @ Jan 11 2026 01:27pm)

In for the entertainment

Quote (addone @ Jan 10 2026 03:09pm)

Your entire question is an assumption which I just highlighted above.
Now you are asking me my personal opinion on the thing I just said I don't know about and not necessarily believe in.

I can only answer with I don't have any conclusive proof to give you a definitive answer. I may also give you my personal guess which is "a much more advanced ancient civilization of people existed before us" but that is my personal guess which is why I never bothered to give or think why it's relevant.

You desperately require any blanks to be filled in otherwise what? You cannot sleep at night? So you went out and jumped on the first "because magic hokus pokus, Shazam!" Magic wizard created man out of dust like play dough and a woman out of his rib in a magical garden with a talking snake!!!

I am simply saying there is still a mystery box and I am not going to fill it with "because magic wizard"