It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Lack of randomness is evidence of conscious creator, we have 0 example of deterministic systems coming to existence without intelligence or consciousness.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by confreak
Space was not coscious after big bang, but consciousness appeared from unconscious interactions inside after a time.
A sperm is not conscious. An egg is not conscious. Nutrients are not conscious. The resulting developed child is.
So, what uncoscious system created your conscious creator? And if it requires unconscious system first for the conscious system to exist, then explaining the appearance of unconscious system by postulating the existence of conscious system with no evidence is redundant by the law of parsimony, since it implies infinite loop.
The World Wide Web is a network of inter-connectivity that goes everywhere and follows its own intelligence. The advent of this newly emerging communication field around our planet has enabled citizens from all lifestyles to communicate globally via words, sounds and pictures – inexpensively, person-to-person; and from the safety of their own homes and offices – for the first time ever.
The Internet represents a major step in our evolution, and is a forerunner of things to come. Artificial intelligence researcher Francis Heylighen sees huge growth as this new world-wide communication system continues to gain power from billions of humans adding to its intelligence every day. “It will get smarter,” Heylighen says, “as it morphs into a global super-organism that could one day provide solutions to most of humanity’s problems.”
Experts compare the Internet to a planet growing a global brain. As users, we represent the neurons. Texting, emails, and IM act as nerve endings, and electromagnetic waves through the sky become neural pathways. Like germinating seeds, this global brain continues to evolve and as some forward-thinkers believe, will not stop until it develops feelings and achieves consciousness.
Feelings represent a lower level of awareness of what goes on in a system’s environment. In that sense, the global brain will be conscious of important events affecting its goals. A higher level of consciousness – self-awareness – would require that the global brain could reflect on its own functioning. The Internet, in the wider sense of the world community is slowly becoming aware of itself. Although today’s algorithms make the web more intelligent, it cannot monitor itself. However, in principle, there are no obstacles towards implementing such a capacity in the future.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I actually get my feelings of superiority through actually being superior. See, I actually know more about this stuff than you do. This makes you my lesser, at least in this regard.
Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
Why does everyone say I deny science?
Or is this like a predetermined message that just pops out.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by _SilentAssassin_
From Web Of Knowledge I see Dawkins has published at least 100 articles in scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Journal of Neurophysiology and Clinical and Experimental Immunology. Further his books, e.g. the Selfish Gene, have introduced (at least wider scientific community) to new ideas, which have turned out to be correct. So, he's very much a scientist. A very high profile one actually. You might call them crappy books, because they (the ones about religion) totally trash your belief system, but you calling them anything doesn't make it so (I doubt very much you've actually ever even touched a book from Dawkins). For this we'd need proper arguments, which you will fail to deliver. Also, is it a belief system to say that you don't think a transdimensional giraffe created the Universe? Is it a belief system to say you don't think an elephant farted the Earth into existence? Atheism, at heart, is denial of insane ideas for which no proof whatsoever is presented (e.g. christian god). If it's a belief system, you could just as well call it rationalism, in contrast to religions, which we can group into one belief system: irrationalism.edit on 27-6-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Leahn
As I said, Dawkins is not a philosopher. He presents absolutely no new argument against Christianity. In fact, he presents absolutely no argument against Christianity that doesn't already have an answer, sometimes over a thousand years old. Dawkins knows nothing of theology and only taints his own reputation by somehow thinking that his credentials as a scientist warrant him the necessary knowledge to dabble in other intellectual fields.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
While I agree Dawkins is no philosopher, I'd have to disagree with you on your claim that he doesn't have the "necessary knowledge to dabble in other intellectual fields". It doesn't take a biology doctorate to realize the fundamental, inescapable problem of those proposing the existence of a god or deity: the complete lack of evidence for such a proposition. Without such evidence, philosophical argumentation is superfluous.
The problem though is, that creationism doesn't revolve around the Bible
Originally posted by Leahn
I could go on, and on, but it is not necessary. Your claim is completely incorrect. If it was correct, then there would never exist any discussions on any subject, since no new idea could be proposed unless one could present sufficient evidence before it even came into discussion.