Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Consciousness of life and atheism

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If atheism were true why are we not just like robots? To be less vague than that seemingly strange statement why are we conscious? If we came into being by a series of random events I don't see how we would be able to be aware of life. To be able to experience life. To refer back to my initial opening we would be like a robot. A very complex robot. Obviously robots can't think; they just do. Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:08:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true why are we not just like robots? To be less vague than that seemingly strange statement why are we conscious? If we came into being by a series of random events I don't see how we would be able to be aware of life. To be able to experience life. To refer back to my initial opening we would be like a robot. A very complex robot. Obviously robots can't think; they just do. Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?

Just because we don't know something doesn't prove that God did it. So all your questions which can't be answered in no way prove God exists. Something something, you can't explain that therefore God did it.

"If we came into being by a series of random events " Who says they are random ? Maybe you mean non intentional ?

"Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?" again, if we don't know something, that is to say we are ignorant about something, you think this can be used to prove God did it ? finding God in ignorance are we ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:08:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We are just complex robots.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:15:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true

Atheism isn't a set of doctrines. It's the failure to be persuaded by standard religious claims. It makes no claims and therefore can't be true or false.

why are we not just like robots? To be less vague than that seemingly strange statement why are we conscious? If we came into being by a series of random events I don't see how we would be able to be aware of life. To be able to experience life. To refer back to my initial opening we would be like a robot. A very complex robot. Obviously robots can't think; they just do. Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?

This is a challenging philosophical puzzle - the answer to which we can only guess at. No religion has come up with an answer to this problem. Creation mythology is no substitute for a satisfying explanation.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:23:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:15:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true

Atheism isn't a set of doctrines. It's the failure to be persuaded by standard religious claims. It makes no claims and therefore can't be true or false.

False. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. It does not reject or go any further than that. Atheism also does not inherently oppose religion as there exist at least 3 Atheist religions: Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:28:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true why are we not just like robots? To be less vague than that seemingly strange statement why are we conscious? If we came into being by a series of random events I don't see how we would be able to be aware of life. To be able to experience life. To refer back to my initial opening we would be like a robot. A very complex robot. Obviously robots can't think; they just do. Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?

It's not necessarily atheism but materialism/phsyicalism/naturalism that has the issue. The problem of consciousness is to those philosophies as the problem of evil to theism. None of the solutions aren't plausible to those aren't convinced of the truth of them - heck they aren't even plausible to most who are convinced of them.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:34:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The perception of free will is indeed no more a threat to deterministic than the perception of evil is to a theistic philosophy.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:35:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:08:11 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true why are we not just like robots? To be less vague than that seemingly strange statement why are we conscious? If we came into being by a series of random events I don't see how we would be able to be aware of life. To be able to experience life. To refer back to my initial opening we would be like a robot. A very complex robot. Obviously robots can't think; they just do. Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?

Just because we don't know something doesn't prove that God did it. So all your questions which can't be answered in no way prove God exists. Something something, you can't explain that therefore God did it.

I certainly agree. But without any evidence to the contrary this does offer support to the existence of God. I was looking for some explanation. No explanation to my question does not necessarily prove the existence of God, but it certainly helps too. It's a puzzle and so far the only possible explanation given is God. Atheists cannot rationally explain it; theists can.

"If we came into being by a series of random events " Who says they are random ? Maybe you mean non intentional ?

I didn't expect an evolutionist to contend that statement. I thought random events were compatible with evolution.

"Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?" again, if we don't know something, that is to say we are ignorant about something, you think this can be used to prove God did it ? finding God in ignorance are we ?

Finding God in ignorance? No, we are partially ignorant about most controversial religious topics. If we seek an answer to a question and there is no viable answer other than we're ignorant, or God, then I don't see how you can argue it does not support his existence. In fact we are infinitely ignorant about science in that there are always going to be things we don't know. Any scientist would agree nothing is concrete. Science is the atheists favorite weapon.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:40:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To expand on my previous point, Atheism, given that it merely lacks the belief in God it does not necessitate physicalism or naturalism. Not all Atheists have to believe that everything is random chance and were just chemical robots.

.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:52:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:35:25 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:08:11 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true why are we not just like robots? To be less vague than that seemingly strange statement why are we conscious? If we came into being by a series of random events I don't see how we would be able to be aware of life. To be able to experience life. To refer back to my initial opening we would be like a robot. A very complex robot. Obviously robots can't think; they just do. Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?

Just because we don't know something doesn't prove that God did it. So all your questions which can't be answered in no way prove God exists. Something something, you can't explain that therefore God did it.

I certainly agree. But without any evidence to the contrary this does offer support to the existence of God. I was looking for some explanation. No explanation to my question does not necessarily prove the existence of God, but it certainly helps too. It's a puzzle and so far the only possible explanation given is God. Atheists cannot rationally explain it; theists can.

It doesn't help, your just using God to fill in the gaps, hence the term. God doesn't win by default absence other explanations. Here is a gap, I don't know any better, therefore God.

Can I use the same argument for alien of the gaps ? can't explain something, no contrary evidence, no other explanations on offer.......yeah must be aliens.


"If we came into being by a series of random events " Who says they are random ? Maybe you mean non intentional ?

I didn't expect an evolutionist to contend that statement. I thought random events were compatible with evolution.

You implied that the claim was conscious came by random events, just asking.

"Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?" again, if we don't know something, that is to say we are ignorant about something, you think this can be used to prove God did it ? finding God in ignorance are we ?

Finding God in ignorance? No, we are partially ignorant about most controversial religious topics. If we seek an answer to a question and there is no viable answer other than we're ignorant, or God, then I don't see how you can argue it does not support his existence. In fact we are infinitely ignorant about science in that there are always going to be things we don't know. Any scientist would agree nothing is concrete. Science is the atheists favorite weapon.

Yes you are finding God in ignorance me thinks, let me give you a hypothetical. Lets go back to a time when man had no idea why earth quakes happened. One cave man says, God is an explanation for why the earth shakes, the atheist doesn't have a explanation. How should the cave man respond ?

1) God did it
2) I don't know
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 9:39:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:23:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:15:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true

Atheism isn't a set of doctrines. It's the failure to be persuaded by standard religious claims. It makes no claims and therefore can't be true or false.

False. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. It does not reject or go any further than that. Atheism also does not inherently oppose religion as there exist at least 3 Atheist religions: Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism.

I think we're in near agreement. Though I wouldn't call it a simple "lack" of belief.

If a person is never exposed to a religious claim, and therefore has no religious conceptions, then I don't think that person would qualify as an atheist. In order to be an atheist, I think you have to have some exposure to religious idea(s).
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 9:45:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true why are we not just like robots? To be less vague than that seemingly strange statement why are we conscious? If we came into being by a series of random events I don't see how we would be able to be aware of life. To be able to experience life. To refer back to my initial opening we would be like a robot. A very complex robot. Obviously robots can't think; they just do. Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?

Brains... BRAINS... BRRRAAAAAAAIIIIIIIINNNSSS...

Yes, we are robots. Just biological robots. With brains, do not forget that.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 9:52:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 9:39:29 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:23:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:15:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true

Atheism isn't a set of doctrines. It's the failure to be persuaded by standard religious claims. It makes no claims and therefore can't be true or false.

False. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. It does not reject or go any further than that. Atheism also does not inherently oppose religion as there exist at least 3 Atheist religions: Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism.

I think we're in near agreement. Though I wouldn't call it a simple "lack" of belief.

If a person is never exposed to a religious claim, and therefore has no religious conceptions, then I don't think that person would qualify as an atheist. In order to be an atheist, I think you have to have some exposure to religious idea(s).

What makes you say that?
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 10:02:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true why are we not just like robots? To be less vague than that seemingly strange statement why are we conscious? If we came into being by a series of random events I don't see how we would be able to be aware of life. To be able to experience life. To refer back to my initial opening we would be like a robot. A very complex robot. Obviously robots can't think; they just do. Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?

I really don't know hw we attained consciousness. What I do know is that the brain is the product of evolution, so consciousness is also the product of evolution. I just don't know how it evolved.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 10:11:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 9:52:23 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 12/23/2011 9:39:29 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:23:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:15:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true

Atheism isn't a set of doctrines. It's the failure to be persuaded by standard religious claims. It makes no claims and therefore can't be true or false.

False. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. It does not reject or go any further than that. Atheism also does not inherently oppose religion as there exist at least 3 Atheist religions: Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism.

I think we're in near agreement. Though I wouldn't call it a simple "lack" of belief.

If a person is never exposed to a religious claim, and therefore has no religious conceptions, then I don't think that person would qualify as an atheist. In order to be an atheist, I think you have to have some exposure to religious idea(s).

What makes you say that?

I don't think most people would call a person an atheist who has never been exposed to a religious idea.

Consider a person who was raised in a totalitarian state which had eliminated all forms of religious expression and thought. This person, therefore, is innocent of any religious notions. Most people wouldn't call this person an atheist. Would you?

In other words, atheism isn't a state of ignorance (simply lacking belief) but rather a position one takes in an argument.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 10:15:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 10:11:15 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/23/2011 9:52:23 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 12/23/2011 9:39:29 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:23:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:15:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true

Atheism isn't a set of doctrines. It's the failure to be persuaded by standard religious claims. It makes no claims and therefore can't be true or false.

False. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. It does not reject or go any further than that. Atheism also does not inherently oppose religion as there exist at least 3 Atheist religions: Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism.

I think we're in near agreement. Though I wouldn't call it a simple "lack" of belief.

If a person is never exposed to a religious claim, and therefore has no religious conceptions, then I don't think that person would qualify as an atheist. In order to be an atheist, I think you have to have some exposure to religious idea(s).

What makes you say that?

I don't think most people would call a person an atheist who has never been exposed to a religious idea.

Consider a person who was raised in a totalitarian state which had eliminated all forms of religious expression and thought. This person, therefore, is innocent of any religious notions. Most people wouldn't call this person an atheist. Would you?

In other words, atheism isn't a state of ignorance (simply lacking belief) but rather a position one takes in an argument.

I would call that atheism. Theism = belief in the existence of a god or gods. Adding on to that the prefix "A", meaning without, would simply result in "without belief in the existence of a god or gods". It doesn't really matter what other knowledge you lack, only that you have an absence of belief in a god or gods. That's why atheism is occasionally reffered to as the "default" position.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 2:55:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 10:15:54 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:

I would call that atheism. Theism = belief in the existence of a god or gods. Adding on to that the prefix "A", meaning without, would simply result in "without belief in the existence of a god or gods". It doesn't really matter what other knowledge you lack, only that you have an absence of belief in a god or gods. That's why atheism is occasionally reffered to as the "default" position.

I always wonder why when people attempt to appeal to the etymology of the word "atheist" in order justify the definition of atheist just as "lacking belief in god(s)" they neglect to mention the original etymology and connotations of the word.

It's not even close to as cut and dry and proponents tend to make it sound.

"In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[24]

The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[25] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[26] and again in 1571.[27] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[28] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme, and appears in English about 1587.[29] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[30][31] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[32] theist in 1662,[33] deism in 1675,[34] and theism in 1678.[35] At that time "deist" and "deism" already carried their modern meaning. The term theism came to be contrasted with deism.

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[9] In the middle of the seventeenth century it was still assumed that it was impossible not to believe in God;[36] atheist meant not accepting the current conception of the divine.[37]

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[38] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[39]"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Sometimes the use of the term "atheism" to mean "lack of theistic belief" is supported by an appeal to etymology. For example, Martin, in the book mentioned above, says the following:

'In Greek a' means without' or not' and theos' means god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.[4]'

This argument is rather unsatisfactory for at least two reasons. First, it is not completely clear that the correct translation of the Greek prefix "a" is "without." It might also mean "no," in which case "a-the-ism" could be translated as "no-god-ism," or "the view that there is no god." Note that there is no "ism" in Greek. Second, even if the etymology of the word "atheism" did indicate that it once meant "without belief in God," that is still not a good guide to current usage. It is quite common for words to acquire new meanings over time. It seems far more important what people mean by a word today than what it once meant long ago."

http://www.infidels.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 6:20:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Second, even if the etymology of the word "atheism" did indicate that it once meant "without belief in God," that is still not a good guide to current usage. It is quite common for words to acquire new meanings over time. It seems far more important what people mean by a word today than what it once meant long ago."

Exactly.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 9:05:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just got knowledged!
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:03:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true why are we not just like robots? To be less vague than that seemingly strange statement why are we conscious? If we came into being by a series of random events I don't see how we would be able to be aware of life. To be able to experience life. To refer back to my initial opening we would be like a robot. A very complex robot. Obviously robots can't think; they just do. Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?

God of the gaps fallacy

You condemn the Ancient Greeks for believing that the sun was controlled by a god because they created a myth to explain a phenomenon that they did not understand. You are doing the same, however.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 12:12:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A virus hit my computer literally right in the middle as I was writing a response, so I would have posted this last night. I found a way to bypass the virus though.

At 12/23/2011 7:52:01 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:35:25 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:08:11 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:02:03 PM, phantom wrote:
If atheism were true why are we not just like robots? To be less vague than that seemingly strange statement why are we conscious? If we came into being by a series of random events I don't see how we would be able to be aware of life. To be able to experience life. To refer back to my initial opening we would be like a robot. A very complex robot. Obviously robots can't think; they just do. Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?

Just because we don't know something doesn't prove that God did it. So all your questions which can't be answered in no way prove God exists. Something something, you can't explain that therefore God did it.

I certainly agree. But without any evidence to the contrary this does offer support to the existence of God. I was looking for some explanation. No explanation to my question does not necessarily prove the existence of God, but it certainly helps too. It's a puzzle and so far the only possible explanation given is God. Atheists cannot rationally explain it; theists can.

It doesn't help, your just using God to fill in the gaps, hence the term. God doesn't win by default absence other explanations. Here is a gap, I don't know any better, therefore God.

This is so obviously a problem for atheists it looks like you just don't want theists to have the least bit of an advantage. Filling in the gaps is all about what inquiring truth is about. We have a question and seek to find the most logical answer. Sure science hasn't found out many things. There will always be many things science hasn't found out. If you think God is not a logical answer than okay fine. But if God is the only, or most, logical answer that has been reasoned, then until another answer is found more probable than God, atheists can't just toss this aside.

Can I use the same argument for alien of the gaps ? can't explain something, no contrary evidence, no other explanations on offer.......yeah must be aliens.

If you think aliens might be a better explanation I encourage you too.

"If we came into being by a series of random events " Who says they are random ? Maybe you mean non intentional ?

I didn't expect an evolutionist to contend that statement. I thought random events were compatible with evolution.

You implied that the claim was conscious came by random events, just asking.

I was only saying what I thought evolutionary theory taught.

"Where are the arguments that show how we obtained the ability to be conscious of life?" again, if we don't know something, that is to say we are ignorant about something, you think this can be used to prove God did it ? finding God in ignorance are we ?

Finding God in ignorance? No, we are partially ignorant about most controversial religious topics. If we seek an answer to a question and there is no viable answer other than we're ignorant, or God, then I don't see how you can argue it does not support his existence. In fact we are infinitely ignorant about science in that there are always going to be things we don't know. Any scientist would agree nothing is concrete. Science is the atheists favorite weapon.

Yes you are finding God in ignorance me thinks, let me give you a hypothetical. Lets go back to a time when man had no idea why earth quakes happened. One cave man says, God is an explanation for why the earth shakes, the atheist doesn't have a explanation. How should the cave man respond ?

1) God did it
2) I don't know

I think you know that the caveman would have more than just those two options. Also we are much much more advanced than back then. Science has been able to answer a vast amount of questions. Anyways, this could be applied to almost any argument. We don't know everything about anything. An atheist and a theist are arguing about something scientific or religious. One side is wining over the other. Let's say the atheist. According to you it's perfectly reasonable for the theist to just say, we don't know enough about it to be sure. You're just filling in the gaps.

You do realize your entire argument is idk and it's alright idk
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)