Originally posted by TheAlmo
reply to post by Dragonfly79
This argument, the way I see it, tries to prove that we have a creator/designer; which is not the our topic.
I can see how you can interpret that but that wasn't my intention. I've thought about the question over and over, reality can be seen from both
perspectives but what's in front of us (life in general) doesn't need to change wether a creator/designer exists or not. Your response would indicate
you can not think of anything other than there being a creator/designer or something else.
It's a fact someone in the evolution of humanity started to express something which is like art, it might also be hunters becoming better at hunting
and passing this knowledge on by means of identifying different animals to hunt, hunting tactics etc. Other animals did not do this like humans did.
What made their programming different, what is the cause for that to have happened, why didn't other animals do something similar?
Yes there is a "we" and it refers to humanity.
No, it refers to a group of likeminded scientists who seek to convince others science is the way to go and if you're not one of them well you must
belong to the unintelligent animals and you'll be excluded by society, ridiculed and officially declared mentally ill if you're not careful (which is
just a modern version of excommunication but I'll try not to digress to religion again).
But forget about it, doesn't need to play a role in this discussion. I just see a generation of people being brainwashed by a group of people who do
not seem to be organized yet but who all preach scientific dogma's which is all good except when it comes to subjects like a hereafter or there being
more to this existence than the physical, which is usually quickly ridiculed. Which bothers me even though I should know better and just refrain from
responding but I can't help myself, the prospect of a society where everyone is only concerned about mundane things acting like robots without any
power over their own minds (or programming) worries me.
Maybe scientists simply fear it, maybe some have aversions to religion because of personal negative experiences, maybe some have profits to gain by
research getting published, maybe some just want to belong to a group which appears sincere, just and good for all of humanity in the long run, maybe
some just can't be bothered to invest time in what appears to be something not worthwile. There are a number of reasons why people would want to
exchange faith with science, religion used to provide a sense of security by the prospect of heaven, science provides the sense of security that if
you get sick there might be a cure. Just trying to understand the mindset here.
"we invented the computer" and "we live in 2011"... and what I said which is: we -humanity- can only see electrical signals and chemical
reactions in the brain. That's what we can find and see and experiment with. There could be more, yes, but that's ALL we can see now, which is also
all I need for my argument.
That's all true, I try to follow scientific research but just because something isn't proven by 'science' doesn't mean it's nonexistant. If more
accept there is no such thing as free will, that is how humanity will become, or at least the Western societies once dominated by empirical science. I
would just find it such a waste and a bad ending for humanity. People need more control over their own mind instead of being told they have little
control as determined by science.
It doesn't matter.
What I was trying to say is if there was no such thing as free will, all of humanity, regardless of location (barring geographical differences like
mountains/rivers/deserts etc) would respond to eachother in the same way so all the different cultures would have turned out the same. But it didn't.
Why did some people choose God back then while others chose Gods and others just 'forces of nature' (animism) and yet others choose to completely
ignore that all and instead only choose to see the physical? Obviously programming has evolved differently, whether or not it was created or designed
there must be some cause for this.
no... you see, my theory, is based on facts.
To me those facts are interpretations of phenomena, nothing more. Ofcourse one cannot grow another organ nor will the brain evolve in one lifetime to
accomodate the ability to see more phenomena, if there are any. Just saying there could be functions of the brain no one has tapped into simply
because everyone keeps telling this is all there is. Once all religion/faith/beliefs have been wiped out and replaced by scientific dogma's there will
be little chance any human will ever find out if there is more to life, maybe they will simply forget about having a choice or not even know it at all
and just do whatever they are told. In the end accepting and understanding one's own free will is having a certain control over the experience of this
life, forfeit it and all you become is something which only reacts to life, without having any choice how to react to it.
edit on 13/10/2011 by
Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)