intelligent Design is More than "God did it."

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

How many animals have a conscience?

told you give me a workable deffintion and i can start looking looking for examples

How many other creatures aside from humans that have a "knowing" between what is right and what is wrong?

prctically every epcie of primate and monkey, wolves, elephant, lions, hyena ...pretty much all social mammals have a inbuilt moral code of practice for thier species whats right and wrong

How many have the capability of expanding their minds and learning a foreign language?

dolphin have been able to learn large dialect of enlgish, chimps and gorilla have been learnt ign language to communicate, there wa also a bonobo that taught itself to understand english just by observing the actions and words of her handlers without them teaching her

old world monkies there are over 15 species of monkey that run a kind of neighbourhood watch system they all travel together and forage at different levels of the jungle canopy, all understand the calls of each of the other species so when one troop sends out an alarm call quickly every other troop sends out thier own alarm call for that perticular predator o all 15 species know which predator and then they act togtehr to drive it away or avoid it

jut how many people have learnt to peak cimp? or gorilla? or dolphin? they are doing a better job then we are

How many know that it is wrong to kill?

umm it isnt ... its wrong to kill, except in your own social group

How many understand morality that transcends time,

transcend time how? it wa good back then os it good now? they wernt killing each other for thouands of years and said suddenly hey guy its getting hard to get laid lets not kill each other mmk?

place,

doesnt matter where you are simian use the same buit in social code in the zoo as they do in the forest and jungles and in the towns and mountain

culture

culture mean nothing it a group identity we formed lonmg after our built in code came along

and conditioning,

? yes conditioning .... like th e conditioning when your average person i repeatedly ordered by a figure of authority to carry out somthing they would normaly shrink in horror from they instead jump right in to do it ... like the above video touches on

our morale code falls apart given the right circumstances

a trait common among humans but not animals?

a shown they happen in animals and more then that WE ARE ANIMALS

Another words, folks...you would not even be talking about atheism verses a conscious power unless HE invented thought/consciousness.

but thats jumping from the bia of belief that he doe exit and he did create and were his special ones and .........

were not all that special we do some things better then the average animal in the jungle but we simply dont stand out as supreme and amazing enough by comaprision to claim we are really the ones gods interested in why not a gorilla god and a chimp god and a dolphin god and a dog god and just keep racking them up

so where do they keep thier holy books?

Originally posted by nj2day
By this logic, Unicorns MUST exist... as you can not prove they don't exist... oh... and don't bother asking for proof... the burden is on you...

Exactly, lol.

That is the CORE of the BS all religions are trying to sell.

Of course, the younger the subject is, more fertile BS indoctrination becomes.

Church is aware that kids of today are not the what kids use to be 50 years ago. They now have have ACCESS , more then ever (internet is the major part here), to everything their parents never told them about, like possibility of NON existance of God.

To effectively suppress this, being indoctrinated at home is simply not enough ...

Therefore need to introduce concept of God into public schools (ID is the perfect candidate here because it disguises itself as science) .

Simply put the whole thing revolves around the fact that god is short on money lately as more and more people turn to personal spirituality without need to attend the church.

Schools can recruit huge numbers hare, so that raises percentage of people who will actually attend churches and donate

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

Ironically, you didn't prove anything! The burden of proof is on you. It is just words. You cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist.

im not the one claiming an invisible all loving all knowing all powerful genie with a beard and a magic carpet made everything ... i have no burden of proof as i am not saying this thing without evidence or bais of existance exists

your asking for negative proof which is a massive logical fallacy

The example I listed earlier of a cell is a prime example of where it makes much better sense that a power with consciousness lived!!!

no it owuld make more sense to look at the actual evidence which shows early life forms where no where near as complex as they are today

your aking what are the odds of a skycrapper building its self to show how a simple cave bigenough to crawl into for shelter i improbable to exist without magic

None of you can still answer the question I had earlier which is a good foundation for an existence of a higher power! It is enough to say, "You might be right!" You ran me around the bush regarding consciousness and yet, never answered the question!

we cant answer the question until you give us somthing close to a working deffintion of conciouness .... but if any aspect of that deffinition shows up in any animal species the odds of u bieng the special ones falls rapidly

so deffine what concious is and we can generate some logical evolutionary scencarious

Not that I don't mind getting a little exercise,

are you flirting again? exercise running each other around bushes .....

but jeez this is a little much, don't you think? Hey I am broad minded and can accept much of what you guys preach. For I am really open minded, but why can you not meet me part way and humbly say, "You've got a point MP!"

so far sweetie you havnt your doing what OT did in that other thread but where he wa saying lanonim ..jesus did it!

your going , conciuous ..god did it!

Originally posted by nj2day

Its a well Documented fact that Noob and I worship the Magical Angry Unicorn... Your religion is dead WRONG...

yes and he sent Pegaus his only calf to die for our sins, how can you posibly think he didnt exist? how mean are you that he died for you and yet you rejecty him and hi sacrifice!

when the end of the world comes pegaus will have a second comming and we will all be going to the local bar for a drink and the rest of you will made to watch peewee herman films for all eternity and drink nothing but albino monkey snot

[edit on 17/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by nj2day

Its a well Documented fact that Noob and I worship the Magical Angry Unicorn... Your religion is dead WRONG...

yes and he sent Pegaus his only calf to die for our sins, how can you posibly think he didnt exist? how mean are you that he died for you and yet you rejecty him and hi sacrifice!

when the end of the world comes pegaus will have a second comming and we will all be going to the local bar for a drink and the rest of you will made to watch peewee herman films for all eternity and drink nothing but albino monkey snot

[edit on 17/2/09 by noobfun]

Yes, and the fact you can't disprove any of this, merely proves that we are RIGHT!

You must renounce your false bipedal gods and admit that the unicorn is the one true deity!

May his horn never go flaccid!

(heh heh, couldn't help it on that one...)

reply to post by nj2day


Hehehe, isn't this fun?

The problem is, and I will repeat it, lacks the necessary tools to disprove or prove a God. Science by its very nature lacks what is needed to understand consciousness. As someone else said;

"What it means to be, that feeling of "I AM." Philosophy sees the big picture and looks at reasoning and understanding. But it doesn't focus on the small details science does."

Science and theology are co-conspirators in this subterfuge that has enslaved humanity via perpetrated rigidity of belief structures. Beyond the Known lay the Unknown; beyond which, the Unknowable, beyond which, S/HE.

So a searching person would say, "Why leave out any source that can answer our questions and give us parity?" If one avenue doesn't answer a question then perhaps the answer lies elsewhere. If one is going to brainstorm on any subject to do it intelligently - one must look at all angles to form a hypothesis.

Dawkins says:

"Who made God?" A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape." - Page 109

Did he give himself a headache with this, do you think?

Unless, he was not made privy to this knowledge! Oh my! Can that be? Why would Pope Dawkins (as many call him for evangelizing for atheism) be the end line in scientific knowledge?

This is indeed circular as the same can be asked of how the start of life came to be? He is baffled by recognized noted scientists like: Peacocke, Stannard, Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, who all believe in science, yet also a God. And he was baffled by Gould when Gould made the inconceivable remark that "Science has nothing whatever to say about the question of God's existence. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists."....Smart man!!! Here is a man that knows his limitations!!!

Yes, I am familiar with the teapot children's hour story. Page 51. Likening God to the tooth fairy, essentially. Boy, that is scientific reasoning!!!!

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to accomplish." - David Hume

You guys I am going to eat dinner now. Please inform the newbies that I am not religious!!!!

Noob and NJ and I have a past! OOOOOOHHHHHH!!!

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
The problem is, and I will repeat it, lacks the necessary tools to disprove or prove a God. Science by its very nature lacks what is needed to understand consciousness.

Its not science that fails... its human's lack of ability to figure out an all encompassing definition... Science has broken conciousness down to the chemical reactions taking place in certain parts of the brain... going beyond that... well... isn't science... its philosophy...

"What it means to be, that feeling of "I AM." Philosophy sees the big picture and looks at reasoning and understanding. But it doesn't focus on the small details science does."

Which is especially convienient, given that it is impossible to be wrong when it comes to philosophy.... Philosophy is just a big inflated word meaning "Opinion"

Science and theology are co-conspirators in this subterfuge that has enslaved humanity via perpetrated rigidity of belief structures. Beyond the Known lay the Unknown; beyond which, the Unknowable, beyond which, S/HE.

Science and theology are completely different animals... Science seeks to draw conclusions from observations in nature, and extrapolate future predictions based on those conclusions...

Then.. they test the hypothesis... Testable hypotheses are the crux of science... A hypothesis doesn't exist if it is inherently un-testable.

Theology... well... is like philosophy... There are no wrong answers... because its all opinion.

"Why leave out any source that can answer our questions and give us parity?"

because fairy tales get us no where... using this logic, since we dont' fully understand gravity, means that we have to add to our hypothesis that there are invisible "gravity devils" constantly grabbing our ankles and pulling us down toward earth... If anyone proposed that... even the religious would laugh...

Instead... I think its safe to rule out the gravity devils as a viable explanation on why gravity exists...

If one avenue doesn't answer a question then perhaps the answer lies elsewhere. If one is going to brainstorm on any subject to do it intelligently - one must look at all angles to form a hypothesis.

AH HA! you want to form a Hypothesis... Ok... give me your hypothesis... remember, it has to be based on observation... and falsifiable...

If you can come up with a decent hypothesis that is falsifiable, We'd be way ahead of the game... but, alas, 2000 years+ and ticking... No one has been able to come up with one.

"Who made God?" A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape." - Page 109

Did he give himself a headache with this, do you think?

Holy out of context batman! Dawkins was demonstrating the logical fallicies used in defense of religion... one of which, is infinite regression...

Shame on you for using a quote so out of context, and implying it has a philosophical meaning that supports your argument!

Unless, he was not made privy to this knowledge! Oh my! Can that be? Why would Pope Dawkins (as many call him for evangelizing for atheism) be the end line in scientific knowledge?

Hrm? don't get me started on the supposed evangelical atheism misnomer the church is dishing out... It is a complete contradiction in terms... and based on a straw man... you don't want to go straw man...

He was simply outlining a common argument used by the "sheep"... (calling religious sheep can't be offensive... they constantly call themselves "the flock")

This is indeed circular as the same can be asked of how the start of life came to be?

Erm... we're talking ID and evolution right? or are we talking abiogenesis? They are not, nor have they ever been, the same thing...

He is baffled by recognized noted scientists like: Peacocke, Stannard, Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, who all believe in science, yet also a God.

Not quite as baffled as he was saddened if I remember right... he also explained how many scientists belong to a more Deistic version of religion... Deism is changing the definition of the word "god", so it seems more along the line of apologetics to me...

And he was baffled by Gould when Gould made the inconceivable remark that "Science has nothing whatever to say about the question of God's existence. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists."....Smart man!!!

Here is a man that knows his limitations!!!

Don't you find it sad, that you are celebrating the fact that scientists can't prove your god doesn't exist?

Yes, I am familiar with the teapot children's hour story. Page 51. Likening God to the tooth fairy, essentially. Boy, that is scientific reasoning!!!!

I think the point was that it is equally as scientific as "god" itself... But, you believe in the tooth fairy.... right?

You must... because you can't prove it doesn't exist!

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to accomplish." - David Hume

Again, he's talking along the same lines as Sherlock Homles did.... "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

If you reflect on that from my point of view... it would invalidate any claims for miracles... ever... as there is always a more likely non-supernatural explaination!

reply to post by SamuraiDrifter


Nothing wrong with Theistic evolution or evolution in general. Evolution though doesn't really take us to how, why are we here or did God really create us or set in motion the big bang and all the followed. You can't bring the razor into what you just posted.

Here's something for you to ponder.... I'm sure you'll like this one too....

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Scientists find evidence that monkeys have a sense of morality!

reply to post by nj2day


I am sorry you misunderstood the use of the quote of Dawkins I used showing his expression of the extreme improbability of God and his argument of who made God then? In talking about infinite regress getting down to who designed the designer? Natural science looks to the quest for explaining everything, but maybe this theory isn't realistic when it comes to God.

He obviously has a difficult time understanding the ability to comprehend science and other forms of understanding that requires an explanation. So the argument is that explicability itself requires explanation.

Another words; the more advanced our knowledge regarding the universe becomes - the more explanation is needed to understand this success.

Dawkins in his book points out the sheer improbability of our existence. Believing in God represents belief in a being whose existence must be even more complex - and therefore more improbable. This presents problems. Why would something just because it is complex be improbable?

What the natural sciences can explain in the lesser theories does not negate the complex ones that they cannot explain.

The one inescapable and highly improbable fact about the world is that we, as reflective human beings, are in fact here. Now it is virtually impossible to quantify how improbable the existence of humanity is. Dawkins himself is clear, especially in Climbing Mount Improbable, that it is very, very improbable. But we are here....Perhaps we need to appreciate that there are many things that seem improbable - but improbability does not, and never has entailed nonexistence. We may be highly improbable - yet we are here. The issue, then, is not whether God is probable but whether God is actual."

You mentioned that this would be in the realm of philosophy. Well, like us, philosophy exists. Ironically, there are philosophers of science. Perhaps these are the individuals who would be most qualified to discuss proof or evidence.

Scientists are confronted with the question of how to make sense of highly complex, multifaceted and multi-layered reality. For they exist! So the greatest questions of life like: how did everything begin? What is the meaning of life? Or the existence of God? Or is there a purpose within nature? They cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. Where is the "proof"scientifically? They are simply beyond the scope of scientific method. So they must be answered on grounds other than the sciences.

Because some like Dawkins would call these pseudo questions does not demean their existence or want of answers!

The irony with Dawkins and his promotion of atheism is in his peers:

"Dawkins is forced to contend with the highly awkward fact that his view that the natural sciences are an intellectual superhighway to atheism is rejected by most scientists, irrespective of their religious views. Most unbelieving scientists of my acquaintance are atheists on grounds other than their science, they bring those assumptions to their science rather than basing them on their science...His dogmatic insistence that all "real" scientists ought to be atheists has met with fierce resistance from precisely the community that he believes should be his fiercest and most loyal supporter."

Not to leave out the fact that about 55% of scientists are believers in a God or Divine Intelligence, or are agnostic!

Have a good evening!!

reply to post by nj2day


I forgot to add to my post above...thank you for the link on monkeys. I learned something from it. Thanks!

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

Hehehe, isn't this fun?

no your ignoring the very important question and carrying on regardless

The problem is, and I will repeat it, lacks the necessary tools to disprove or prove a God.

but so far hasnt found any reason why one must or even might exist to require the needs for tools of testing to be created

and depending on the deffinition of god aspect of it can be tested, theres a tet involving a coin that diproves what the bible ays about prayer working or shows the testie to have les faith then the minicule ammount the bible states is required,

throw into that the number of various deities available, the similaraities between them, the fact they all hate each other, the fact they all relly on creating congnative bias that the person then make a part of themselves, the fact they all rely on some form of fear co-operation

Science by its very nature lacks what is needed to understand consciousness. As someone else said;

and again i will ask the very very important question

what is conciousness? whats a workable deffintion of human conciousness that precludes all other animals to show how we are so much more special then them?

and i beg to differ pychology is the science of brain and its functionality, conciousness falls into that, its starting to be understood what happen where, what happens when X happen

NLP decided to ignore the conciou mind altogether as it a pointless blowhard and all the real works done by the unconcious, mot forms of pychology ue the conciouse mind to try and relay information from the unconcious ..again the inner working the id, the unconcious, the inner self image al relate to th e bits below conciounes becasue that the important bit for how we run

without conciouness we could survive, without the unconcious we would all die in about 3 minutes

so again deffine conciouness in a way that precludes ALL aspects of observed animal psychology and then when you realsie you have nothing there you might realise were not so special and conciousness is just another natural thing we share with our cousins and pretend i somthing bigger and brighter then it really is

"What it means to be, that feeling of "I AM."

lets ask a gorilla .. or a bonobo .... even a capuchin ..... or a dog

Philosophy sees the big picture and looks at reasoning and understanding. But it doesn't focus on the small details science does."

philosophy speculates and makes thing up and then change it self conitantly not becasue of new evidence but because of new social trends

its a goal post moving exercise of intelligently making things up ....

So a searching person would say, "Why leave out any source that can answer our questions and give us parity?"

but a sensible one would say why ue methods that just make up fancy lies and daydream of what might be if we want to know what is?

Dawkins says:

"Who made God?" A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape." - Page 109

Did he give himself a headache with this, do you think?

probabibly not 'who made god' infact destroys several of the bigget, most used, most logically falacious, idiotic arguments for god/gods in common usage

and it an accurate descritpion of the idiocy of ID' premie a well a anyone who think a gods needed to design and create everything ..or even anything but then just happened to be there ...

Unless, he was not made privy to this knowledge! Oh my! Can that be? Why would Pope Dawkins (as many call him for evangelizing for atheism) be the end line in scientific knowledge?

holy ad-hominim attack to disprove a point they themselves raised (and failed to disprove) for the sole purpose of making illogical funadmentalist style circular argumention trying to disprove one small part of an argument then pretend it makes the whole argument null and void then pull the falcious your wrong so i must be right manouvere batman!

This is indeed circular as the same can be asked of how the start of life came to be?

ummmm deffine life?

that another thing people fling around with no real dea what it is, life is just a bag of organic chemical process's that intead of bieng carried out in a puddle get carried out in a self contained bag of orgin tructure made with the same organic chemistry

until we deffine what life is how can we deffine at what point it starts, and how is it a circular argument? organic compounds self form organic tructures that carry out organic chemistry and build other organic structures to carry on organic chemitry inside, complexity of structure and cemistry increase until its what you would deffine a self replicating orgnaic life form ...

it not circular .. but from there people pull thier usual infinty digress with an imaginary false terminater they create then shove a beard and magical powers on and say it's thier best imaginary friend

He is baffled by recognized noted scientists like: Peacocke, Stannard, Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, who all believe in science, yet also a God.

im baffled ask them for anything that proves god did it and they wil say yes and roll off an example, then ask them if it could have come about by natural means without the help of a deity ..answer yes no evidence no point why bother?

And he was baffled by Gould when Gould made the inconceivable remark that "Science has nothing whatever to say about the question of God's existence. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists."....Smart man!!!

Here is a man that knows his limitations!!!

you do realise everytime Dawkin opens hi mouth science doesnt come out

and he doesnt use science to disprove god, and you blatantly know this what he say i repeat after me ' science shows there is no need for a diety to exit for the universe as we know it to exit'

so you missed the point Gould made as a scientist they cant confirm or deny god conclusivley as thier i no evidence to evaluate, as men they can weigh out the lack of evidence and then make thier own choice and comment on that

Yes, I am familiar with the teapot children's hour story. Page 51. Likening God to the tooth fairy, essentially. Boy, that is scientific reasoning!!!!

just becasue it said by a scientist doesnt mean it scientific, it logical but not scientific

and this is another funddie tactic attack somthing for somthing it isnt and try and avoid the validity of the statement, god has the same evidence as the tooth fairies, shared properties with teeth fairies and the other fairy folk .... a logical concluion would be they are in someway related

i think youve been hanging out with the silly funddies to much hun its rubbing off

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe:, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves

Look back again at the pale blue dot of the preceding chapter. Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn't strike you as unlikely, pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They, too, cherish the notion of a God who has created everything for their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?

In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."

All 3 from the late very great Carl Sagan, think about them a little before replying

[edit on 18/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 18/2/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


I asked the question initially that neither of you could answer which would give an indication of the purpose of God, and I did it without calling you guys names, ie; fundie, being like OT etc.

When it comes to consciousness I will not set a limit on who has it or not! I am sorry if I gave that indication before. The FACT that it exists is the question, no matter who is instilled with it - animals or us.

Here are some definitions of consciousness the first attributed to man only:

"The supreme level of mental reflection of objective reality, inherent in man exclusively by virtue of his socio-historical essence."

"Empirically, C. is a continually changing totality of sensory images and thought that arise directly before the subject in his "inner experience," and anticipate his practical activity."

It is studied by several sciences, such as philosophy (the main question of philosophy is that of the relation of C. to being), logic, linguistics, neurophysiology, anthropology, sociology, and ethnography. Psychology studies the origin, structure and functioning of individual C.

Perhaps you can tell me where animals have the ability to study their consciousness and have you talked to any of them about it?

"The C. of any individual is unique, but not arbitrary, being conditioned by external factors independent of C. (primarily by the structures of the social system in which the individuals exists). For ages, the problem of C. has been the subject of acute ideological and theoretical debates, in which the materialist approach based on the natural sciences opposed idealist-religious theories. Marx, Engels, and Lenin, who radically revised Hegel's ideas, had a decisive impact on the solution of the problem of C. They stated that C. structures are of sociocultural nature and had formed phylogenetically (see Phylogenesis), in the course of man's history, under the supra-individual social structures that appeared in the course of joint activities (primarily in material production)....Object-related activity and its attributes, communication, possess the following main properties reflected in its structure: social origin and composition (which is expressed in its social reglamentation and also in its mediation by various implements and signs): involvement of two subjects; and object orientation. The structure of joint activities engenders the structure of C., correspondingly determining its following main properties: social nature, capacity for reflexion and inner dialogue, and object-related character."

And all of this without the benefit of a higher power!

I like Carl Sagan and have no problem with him except his former narrowness as well as Dawkins have in relating all believers of God on the same level. "Wanting to keep God small." Quite to the contrary, I find their views very limiting and boxed in.

None of you say anything or have given any proof of the unlikelihood of a God, indeed, you almost affirm it!

In my next post I will give the reason why God is very probable.

My intellectual (spiritual and emotional is too abstract) reason for believing in a higher power with consciousness is as follows...

Without the conscious power that is greater than ourselves we would never be able to answer or even ask the most important questions that man has pondered throughout time:

Why are we here?

How did life start?

What is the meaning of life?

Is this all there is?

Where did consciousness get its start?

How did the gray matter that is called our brains develop thought?

Where did truth come from?

Where did conscience come from?

Where did comprehension come from?

Why do we die (when our cells were developed otherwise)?

Where did imagination come from?

How did we and animals get our instinct?

Where did intuitiveness come from?

Where did reason come from?

Where did our ego come from?

Where did our IQ come from?

Where did creativity come from?

What is the purpose to nature?

Is there a purpose to the universe?

Why is there such perfection in nature?

Where did imagination come from?

Where did science come from?

Where did matter come from?

Where did light come from?

Where did electricity get its start?

How did time start?

What is infinity?

And what about quantum physics?


All these questions searching minds want to know, without former prejudices, without placing limits on comprehension and the direction our thoughts and discoveries lead us. Without perimeters dictated to us by all the many human structured systems, nor place any limits on its research.

MP

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

I asked the question initially that neither of you could answer which would give an indication of the purpose of God, and I did it without calling you guys names, ie; fundie, being like OT etc.

i did ask you to reiterate the question save me going back and hunting it down

and umm name calling?

your making the same argument as OT

your using the same tactics as funddies .....

not name calling hun its argument commentary, else id be saying your just like a funddie, your just like OT

When it comes to consciousness I will not set a limit on who has it or not! I am sorry if I gave that indication before. The FACT that it exists is the question, no matter who is instilled with it - animals or us.

but the fact its also displayed by animals shows the whole were all super special and above animals becasue we have conciousness and god loves us more and made the planet for us and yada yada

look a bit simplistic self important and well retarded .... as you sayyour not making that argument else id be pulling out some fun cosmology to put us and our grain of sand into perspective

im not at home atm so dont have access to all my links, need to double check a couple of documentaries and point you to them as both langar and capuchin display the second deffintion

and well the first just seems to be a dodgy twist of language, which only work,s becasue we write our history down and is still only relevant to us for names and dates

lemme go home and doa bit of fun research and ill get bac to ya ^_^

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
My intellectual (spiritual and emotional is too abstract) reason for believing in a higher power with consciousness is as follows...

looks like a list of explain it or it must be god .. i hope this isnt the way your using it hun.. grab your copy of god delusion and re-read the section that covers religeous arguemnts the one dealing with god of the gaps arguments it the prevelant on

Without the conscious power that is greater than ourselves we would never be able to answer or even ask the most important questions that man has pondered throughout time:

which logical fallacies are you guilty of here?

if a higher power didnt exist were still here to ask those questions and ponder them

its an argument from incredulity(also covered in god delusion) and begging the question

many of these also stem from the same few survival techniques just used in different ways

im heading home now so ill be home in 20 minutes and ill group the questions and provide explenations for the groups and how they come from survival techniques .. it wont cover allsome of them are abstract

Where did comprehension come from?
Where did imagination come from?
Where did intuitiveness come from?
Where did reason come from?

all come from the same basic survival skill, recognistion and association

ok you go to the water hole everyday, and often when you go you see crocodiles, becasue you have observed crocdiles attack other members in your group or yourself you learn to recognise the basic shape of a crocodile and asociare that with memories of previous events as dangerous

crocodile shaped things are dangerous (hey look thats comprehension and reason and keeps you alive so get to stick around)

crocodiles only attack when your in or near water another asociation based on past events (comprehension and reason again)

you now have the aociation crocodile=danger crocodile=water

now if you come across a new body of water even if you havnt seen crocodiles there that association still exist so the alert flag goes up and your mind starts scanning for crocodile shapes, even if they cant be found they may still be there so caution is the key (when the alert ignal fires off but it not neccearily there you have the origins of imagination the ability to further association beyond what i there has survival benefit so get to tay around)

intuativeness is just a furthering of those traits shown above, you observe somthing your brain checks its list of experiences looking for patterns of association between whats there and what ha happened in the past it picks up marker imagination run them through senarious (posible threats associated with conditions) to form a likley chain of events of a possible threat

all we are doing in the modern day is using survival techniques in a different way if you can find it try and find a documentary called 'Why Reading Matters' it was a bbc documentary on a couple of weeks ago it exploers where our ability to read comes from and it basically just reycling survival skills of recognition and association .. what was once for potting preator or likley places predators may ambush (or finding food/places it might be found) we now use to read

Why are we here?

becasue of a casue and effect situation of chemistry leading to enviromental pressure and replication

How did life start?

deffine life? chemistry simple ole organic chemsitry and thermodtnamics and other physic principles that lead to replicators and enviromental strese that allowed the faster and more accurate replicators to carry onreplicating succefully leading to increased complexity as improved replicating abilitie evolved

What is the meaning of life?

why must there be a meaning? what i the meaning of a rock? maybe life just is in the same way rocks just are ...why make things up that are not required?

Is this all there is?

the whole of the univere most of which we dont yet undestand and have never seen and you think we really need more?

Where did consciousness get its start?

jut an improved survival skill thats got all self important despite it real ability to do anything but get in the way of the everyday workings and survival

How did the gray matter that is called our brains develop thought?

what is thought? the recall of past events and assocaition made from memory to construct possible future memories and asociations

Where did truth come from?

doet exit, things either are or they are not it an abstract concept deigned to explain and differenciate what is from what isnt

Where did conscience come from?

see above

Why do we die (when our cells were developed otherwise)?

they arnt telomeres decay with each copy, the more they decay the more probable errors in copy happen until the errors render the cells unviable and unable to produce more so each generation of cells shortens the life of the next set of copies

its just a large scale version of cellular death that happens every minute of everyday, when the cell in a certain organ reach thier end the lo of thier use in the system have detrimental effects on the ystem culminating in all of the ystem denegrating towards unfunctionality

How did we and animals get our instinct?

we dont know yet but a posible is a basic genetic memory ability, not all memories appear to be stored in the brain amputees often loose access to chunks of thier memory when limbs are lost .... which is odd

but as yet unproven beyond a possible hypothesis

Where did our ego come from?

with social living heirachy develops, different group have differning styles of heirachy and aociation plays into who i above who i ame level who i below, but the higher up the chain the better your chance of survival and procreation o once the asociation of heirachy exist the ability to move up it also exists, those who's asociation gave them an edge to move up the group to survive and breed had the advantage, this ability to spot way to improve your own ranking were the origins of ego and self awareness

Where did our IQ come from?

no such thing its a man made concept to measure aspects of a brains ability

Where did creativity come from?

a furtherance of predictive association skills (imagination), everything i linked to an already existing asociation with future possible asociations added to form a new concept of expresion

What is the purpose to nature?

why must there be one?

Is there a purpose to the universe?

probabily not except the one we create for it, it doe what it does and we make stuff up about it so our little stories make us feel better and help u asociate it within our thought processes

Why is there such perfection in nature?

sorry wheres that?

your eyes are wired backwards your spines not fuly suited for bipedalism, chettah are so inbreed they are virtually genetically bankrupt, diseases adapt faster then immune systems can respond in many cases, infant mortality is high, genetic defects can do and will exist in anything with a genetic code

almost everything needs to attack and eat somthing else living to survive

you have a strange idea of perfection

Where did science come from?

it the best set of quetions and methods we have come up with to define what is and what isnt

Where did matter come from?

the component were released with the big bang but until it cooled down a bit they were unabe to form into simple element hydrogen/helium

thn stars got involved and they created the elemntary dust we and everything else around u are formed from

prior to the bigbang no one knows, so anyone claiming to have an answer i simply making unubstanciated claims about things that are presently unknowable ...effectivley lying to make themfeel better or seem smarter and wiser then they really are

Where did light come from?

light is the release of energy from matter, which i why he big bang happened beight light for a while then nothing but darkness until star started to form and they released the energy contained in the clouds of helioum/hydrogen they were forming from

Where did electricity get its start?

same as light its just another form of energy bieng released

How did time start?

we dont know, we dont know if time predated the big bang or was created along with it

as Hawkins said' we cant see past the event of the big bang so time is unmeasurable so we should ignore it for the time bieng and imply say measurable time started with the big bang

What is infinity?

somthing that may or may not exist it a concept of what may be the ultimate but it may also not exist

And what about quantum physics?

what about it?

these arnt certainly correct answers but we can see how some may have come about through natural processes

the ones best able to use these to facilitie surviving breeding and pasing on the ability, then the brains perpensity to use and increase its ability with each increase in fitness driving from the very simple origin of asociation and pattern recognition to the very complex functions we see today

others are man made figment of our imagination used to help us understand somthing

others are our resulting improving mental abilities being misused when turned on things they wernt originally designed for,

[edit on 18/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 18/2/09 by noobfun]

Imagination is very usefull for a hunter. It allows to anticipates the preys actions. You can formulate plans for what it might be doing, instead of only reacting on what it actually does.

and the good old :

[qoute] 250 basic proteins lined up perfectly in the same sequence just to create one basic cell and it would need to be in that same order or it won't work. Odds of it happening by accident would have to be in the multi-trillions just for one cell! Only one cell!!! [/qoute]

.... well there is a little flaw in that. Lets say chances are 1 to 100000000 million billion trillion.

So: if you threw a coin it would have to come up heads 100000000 million billion trillion times. Wont happen eh? Well, sure, but if it doesnt count if it comes up tails? And thats what happens. There were proteins that didnt line up like that. Nobody cared, because they didnt do the stuff that the other protein clusters did. Nature just tried again, because there was nothing else to do yet.

reply to post by noobfun


You forgot the final question here, the one which lies on the very boundary of our logic:

Why there is something rather then nothing ?

reply to post by noobfun


Sweetie I can play the infinite regress game all day and you still won't be able to answer my multitude of questions.

If you cannot answer my questions with cognizance, intelligence and humility, I will accept that Occam's Razor is the effective tool to use. The simplest explanation is the best....the reality of a power with consciousness (PC) would be the simplest explanation for all my good questions. Regardless of whether you have "proof" of him or not. The questions are proof in themselves by their very existence, the He exists.

The impossible would be trying to disprove what I am saying regarding PC, so the improbable would be accurate after all, since PC, regardless of one's denial, prejudice, or hostility towards him, would still be the simplest answer.

You have not given me enough evidence that atheism works and is advanced or intelligent enough to meet my questions.

IMO - Atheism bites the dust!