Atheists, explain the construct of a thought, please?

One thing you have to understand. Sticks of wood can be added together and become more than the sum of its parts.

"How so?" you might ask. It does not take God to make a chair. The assemblage of the sticks in a particular way can become a chair. Another combination can make a different stick of furniture. Some combination may result in nothing more than a pile of sticks.

The mind/person/soul is similar. A pile of neurons can become the sum more than the sum of its parts. If arranged a certain way, it can be a spinal cord, a brain, or a pile of neurons. A person's mind is similar to other people's. Difference occurs from the genetic level, environmental level, and/or developmental level.

Isaac Newton is at the right place, right time, with the right brain configured in a certain way to draw out the laws of gravity and invent calculus. If Newton died for some reason before his discoveries, then it is possible that these laws may have not seen the light of day ever. Another person in his place may not have the same incite as Newton could have. The way his and anyone else's brains are wired differently due to again genetics, environment, and development.

So there is nothing really special about his brain chemically. He just happened to be at the right time & place, and the right brain configuration to make it happen.

If Isaac Newton was placed in a different environment and grew up there about 1000 years before he was born, I doubt he would be the same person. Although his genes are the same, he would have a different environment (education, culture, etc.) and different development of his brain (his brain will be wired differently). If he then sees the apple fall from a tree and then look at the moon at the same age, when he discovered the laws for gravity, would not (probably) result with that same thought process because he is not technically the same person.

Scientific Method also has to be thought up to figure out what is true about our world. Not sure when the scientific method really got started but it is not that old.

Also to add... When we die where do we go? Same place where we appeared. Same place where the chair came from when the pile of sticks was put together a certain way. If you take the chair apart, it stops functioning as a chair. If you take apart the neurons by dying, you ceases to exist.

If you learn something new or experience something new, the you from before ceases to exist and a new you is born. If you get brain damaged from an injury, you cease to exist and a new you is born.

, when Isaac Newton and some others came up with Calculus, what chemical reactions were happening in their brains?

- It had nothing to do with chemical reactions, it was a few trillion neural interconnections.

How did they apply the scientific method to something that no one was able to conceive of for thousands of years

- Not the slightest idea what you are talking aabout have you. The scientific method is a process of testing, figuring out what to test is where the neural interconnections come in.

You clearly have no idea that calculus has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Calculus is deductive reasoning, it can be proven with logic.

Evolution is inductive, it can be shown with evidence. THIS is where the scientific method is necessary.

The scientific method is necessary for turning the process of finding evidence into a logical process, so we can't mess it up with human error. This is why people ignore creationism.

Calculus is not science, it is the application of a logical process.

I'm not certain that Newton and Leibniz were entirely original, I vaguely recall that something like calculus had been around quite a while.

I think you are confusing atheist with brain surgeon.

But if you take a bit of time you'll find out it isn't one tenth the mystery you think it is. Let's face it, they watch this on MRIs now. It ain't magic.

But even if it were, that would provide you with exactly zero evidence of a god thingy.

Things like this are not extremely difficult to conceive. They're just difficult to prove. The way things like this are discovered is by first making a hypothesis. At this stage, nobody knows if an idea is true or not. A logical hypothesis can be tested, and evidence may be found for it. What scientists do is take the theories that have the most evidence and just keep on testing them. We can never prove things like this, only disprove them. Even today, we're still doing tests on gravity, even though it is a proven concept. It's just figuring out a way to show if a certain variable is true or not. Of course nobody can conceive of the laws of physics and chemistry at the level of which they actually occur, but we can show examples of them and use what is known to form new ideas.

Ask a neurologist.

I don't know the answer, but at least I'm not arrogant enough to assume that if I personally don't know the answer, there is no answer and that proves a god exists.

Human behavior, such as thought, will always have an uncontrolled variable that the scientific method cannot account for. You can take a reductionist approach, like you propose, but I tend to believe the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. :)

new technologies came along to aide them in disproving the old book about arks with animals and zombie jesus