Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 8:27 PM
360 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, kjsimons, Meddle, Percy (Admin) (7 members, 353 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,116 Year: 25,722/21,208 Month: 1,349/2,338 Week: 106/364 Day: 57/49 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Author Topic:   What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 151 of 185 (486803)
10-24-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Agobot
10-24-2008 1:49 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Does the universe obey laws? Do we create laws and logic that reflect the universe in which we find ourselves? Could a universe with other laws have existed? Could we exist in a universe that does not obey laws? Could a universe that does not "obey" laws even exist? Could all universes with all possible "laws" potentially have existed or even exist? Is "nothingness" stable? How long will our universe last? What percentage of this time will life be present? Could life have existed in any number of other possible universes? Is life anything special except to those that happen to possess it? Do any of these questions have any meaning or value except to humans.

The answers to all of these questions are so unknown, our ignorance currently so complete that your assessments of probability are ridiculous.

You no more know that the universe is an improbable possibility than an inevitable certainty.

You assert a probability. Where do you get your figures from? How do you know any of the answers that would be required in order to calcualte such a probability?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 1:49 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 6:07 PM Straggler has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1751 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 152 of 185 (486805)
10-24-2008 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Agobot
10-24-2008 5:20 PM


Re: Atheism
First RNA --> Single cell organism --> Multicellular organism --> Fish --> Reptile --> Mammal --> Ape --> Hominid --> Homo sapiens --> ...

I'll give 2 possibilities:

1) Something similar but different enough that it can't mate with Homo sapiens
2) extinction.

Edited by bluescat48, : missing part


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 5:20 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Agobot, posted 10-26-2008 8:08 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3092 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 153 of 185 (486806)
10-24-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by onifre
10-24-2008 5:01 PM


Re: Atheism
onifre writes:

Or we'll rise up and find out that there is no such force, or harmony, at least not an intelligent one. Then we may realize the true nature of existance, namely that it is meaningless.

Let's assume for the moment that the paradox with the physical laws did not exist. Why would there be something instead of nothing? No reason? Isn't this type of resoning the same as the god of the gaps - i.e. you don't know yet and you attribute to it no purpose?

BTW i get a very creepy feeling when i tie the zero energy universe with the law of conservation of energy.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by onifre, posted 10-24-2008 5:01 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by onifre, posted 10-24-2008 6:51 PM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3092 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 154 of 185 (486808)
10-24-2008 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Straggler
10-24-2008 5:54 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Straggler writes:

You no more know that the universe is an improbable possibility than an inevitable certainty.

You assert a probability. Where do you get your figures from? How do you know any of the answers that would be required in order to calcualte such a probability?

Without the physical laws the probability is zero. How would you construct matter if opposite charges did not attract and like charges did not repel? How do you think this might be possible?

What meaning do you attribute to "inevitability"? Inevitability resulting from what for example?


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 10-24-2008 5:54 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Straggler, posted 10-24-2008 6:32 PM Agobot has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 155 of 185 (486813)
10-24-2008 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Agobot
10-24-2008 6:07 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
What meaning do you attribute to "inevitability"? Inevitability resulting from what for example?

Inevitability potentially resulting from the same unknowns from which you conclude deep improbability.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 6:07 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 7:10 PM Straggler has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 513 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 156 of 185 (486820)
10-24-2008 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Agobot
10-24-2008 6:00 PM


Re: Atheism
Hi Abogot,

First this one,

Abogot writes:

First RNA --> Single cell organism --> Multicellular organism --> Fish --> Reptile --> Mammal --> Ape --> Hominid --> Homo sapiens --> ...

I don't know. After single cell organism the complexity level of the biological organisms that you mention above is similar, in fact some amphibians and reptiles are much more complex than us.

The only thing that seperates us from them in complexity is our consciousness, and that only seems important to us. No other species that we know of has it and yet they manage just fine without it. But I don't think the rise in complexity is leading to anything in particular, and I don't think that in a few 1000, or even 10,000 years, our morphology needs to change at all, unless there's a major climate change that will presure evolution. In fact if we become a Stage I society, like your buddy Michio says, then we can control the climate and natural forces that tend to drive an evolutionary change, thus never being presured to evolve.

Why would there be something instead of nothing? No reason? Isn't this type of resoning the same as the god of the gaps - i.e. you don't know yet and you attribute to it no purpose?

You worded this a bit tricky. I won't go as far as to say there is no purpose but purpose is subjective, so to us there is a purpose, to bacteria there isn't even the thought of purpose. One would have to know who is judging the situation. To me, personally, purpose is attained by the living. I give my life purpose and meaning. I am a sentient being. I am conscious of my existance therefore would like to make it purposefull for many reason i.e. self-worth, self-fulfilment, self-indulgence etc etc. But notice it starts with self. It is a subjectively experienced life.

I however, did not say purpose I said meaningless. In other words if Abogot or Onifre or Straggler (we should have a name for this group by the way:laugh: ), live a wonderfully fulfilling life and die what meaning do you give our individual lives? None. The meanfull part took place while we were alive, the rest is left to those we leave behind to find meaning for themselves.

IMO words like meaning and purpose get shoved into areas that can't be represented in the same way.

So if you took me out of context let me re-explain my position. Purpose or meaning IMO are attributes of conscious beings, to take these words and try to give them equal meaning when you are talking about the universe, which im assuming is not conscious, will not prove much other than you feel the universe has purpose and meaning. Then it becomes a subjective interpretation and because you are a sentient being you feel it makes sense. If it does to you then cool, but it does not to me.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 6:00 PM Agobot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by 1.61803, posted 10-24-2008 9:59 PM onifre has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3092 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 157 of 185 (486821)
10-24-2008 6:53 PM


My logic, (it can be flawed although it's the same logic that Michio Kaku, Einstein and Hawking apply), is that we are a very very special manifestation of the universe. We are conscious, I don't think most of the atheists quite understand what this means and entails. We are the eyes and consciousness of the universe. The universe has started revealing itself to us by creating us, it's revealing its secrets(how it started, how it proceeded, how it might proceed). All this is possible because the universe is so far comprehensible to us, who are the eyes of the uinverse(the laws that drive the universe are comprehensible). To me we being a tiny transient manifestation of the universe that could read its secrets is magical and magnificient. We are special, think about it... we are the only ones who know the universe exists. The universe is our mother(it created us and it nursed us with its resources on earth), and it has been revealing its secrets to its children for a few millenia. I am not pushing the idea proposed by some scientists that the universe is alive in some sense, but merely stating that we being the eyes and consciousness of the immaterial universe, have a very peculiar relation with it.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by onifre, posted 10-24-2008 7:12 PM Agobot has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3092 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 158 of 185 (486823)
10-24-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Straggler
10-24-2008 6:32 PM


Re: A sampling of their Answers
Straggler writes:

Inevitability potentially resulting from the same unknowns from which you conclude deep improbability.

I am not basing my statements on the unknown, but on the known laws of physics. They are here and they are a fact of life. Why they are here is a philosophical question and i can't seem to find any other answer but design by a greater intelligence. If i do find a more relevant answer, i'll let you know. But keep in mind that my concept of god is what you might call later a natural phenomenon. It's just that this thing has much much greater intelligence than us, it might be aliens, and aliens are natural right?


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Straggler, posted 10-24-2008 6:32 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 10-26-2008 11:33 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 513 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 159 of 185 (486824)
10-24-2008 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Agobot
10-24-2008 6:53 PM


Hi Abogot,

We are conscious, I don't think most of the atheists quite understand what this means and entails.

If you seek out the threads on consciousness I think my posts, as an atheist, are pretty good and show a good understanding of it. Plus I did study philosophy. I think I have a good grasp of what is meant by consciousness, but I'll take a pop quiz if you like.;)

We are the eyes and consciousness of the universe. The universe has started revealing itself to us by creating us, it's revealing its secrets(how it started, how it proceeded, how it might proceed). All this is possible because the universe is so far comprehensible to us, who are the eyes of the uinverse(the laws that drive the universe). To me we being a tiny transient manifestation of the universe that could read its secrets is magical and magnificient. We are special, think about it... we are the only ones who know the universe exists. The universe is our mother, and it has been revealing its secrets to its children for a few millenia. I am not pushing the idea proposed by some scientists that the universe is alive in some sense, but merely stating that we being the eyes and consciousness of the immaterial universe, have a very peculiar relation with it.

Yes, thats all great to think about, but it was not its purpose. If it was its purpose then the universe would have needed to guild every step of the evolutionary process that lead to us. If the huge asteroid(or whatever it was) that struck the Earth 65Mya doesn't hit, the dinos continue their dominance, and man never comes to be. So we are lucky to be here, witnessing life from a conscous PoV, we are lucky to be able to study the universe, we are lucky to have adapted intelligence that helps us do this, we are lucky that no other cosmic event has whipped us out...shit we are lucky an asteroid hit Earth and killed off the other dominant species. Simply put, we are lucky that the random events that lead to our emergence from the trees took place, and yes its really fuckin cool to be able to step back and stare at our mother universe in wonder, but not in arogance like we deserve this. We got lucky, yay us!


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 6:53 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Agobot, posted 10-25-2008 5:14 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2721
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 160 of 185 (486834)
10-24-2008 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Agobot
10-24-2008 4:58 PM


Re: Atheism
Hello Agobot, I do appreciate you not resorting with ad hominims this time. Ok here we go....

quote:
But you are fighting successfully the second law of thermodynamics. Doesn't it surprise you? There is much much more to you than a combination of atoms.

As far as I know the known atoms that the body of science has thus far identified are what are charted on the periodic table. Those are the atoms the universe is composed of as well. If you have knowlege of more types of atoms please share with me what they are.

quote:
You are the consciouness and eyes of the universe, you are the representation and manifestation of the laws of physics that allowed your emergence and that constructed the universe from energy.

I am indeed concious, and I do have eyes. And although I do agree that if one where to think of the universe as a collective conciousness then yes your statement of me being the eyes and conciousness of the universe would hold some validity. However, I am simply a collection of atoms and universal forces (there are but 4 we know of). As is everything that exist in the cosmos. And try as I might, I can not accept that just because it gives one a warm fuzzy feeling of certainty that it all might just be arbitrary. At least I have the intellectual fortitude and honesty to consider that dreaded possibilty.
quote:
So baisaclly you are saying - everything is as it is, for no reason.
I am saying that is a possibilty. And the orderly physical laws contain strange quirkyness that is not orderly in the least but caotic and random in some instances.

quote:
Although it's orderly and follows physical laws. Does this make sense to you?
those apparent orderly physical laws contain strange quirkyness that is not orderly in the least but caotic and random in some instances. Wave functions and fields propagate in a apparent determnistic fashion. But the uncertainty principal still prevades. And any moment Cave Diver and Son of Goku will be chiming in. :D But I still contend that stoichiastic randomness is a element of nature. The math can get you there and thats all that counts...pun intended.

quote:
It's called the Cause and Effect principle. The cause and effect principle holds everywhere in our classical realm of existence because it's based and follows the laws of physics inherent in the universe. Some elegant examples that rule our world and that act on the Cause and Effect principle:

Thomas Aquinas very elegantly argued the Proofs of God and the Prime Mover et al... does not hold water. Cause and effect does not hold water. I challenge you to explain how you can conclude based on just your observations how a cause effects another. You can only assume and conclude there is a relationship. You can not KNOW because you are dependant on your own perceptions and are a part of the system that is doing the observing. Yes common sense and physics etc.. tells us if you push a domino over it will cause the next one to fall. But you can not KNOW it will. Even if you do it a million times you still can not know the millonth and one time if will cause the others to fall. Mathmatically any possible outcomes can occur. All our calculations and knowlege must approximate. Initial conditions can not be duplicated to the exact degree. And the Uncertainty principal will not allow 100 percent accuracy. Reality refuses to be pinned down.

So let us just agree to disagree when it comes to complete and certain knowlege that the universe is created from a intelligent creator. We are in good company, many of us do not dismiss this possiblity, we simply withold judgement until further data comes to light.

Edited by 1.61803, : change the word (to) to (with)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Agobot, posted 10-24-2008 4:58 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Agobot, posted 10-25-2008 5:00 AM 1.61803 has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2721
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 161 of 185 (486844)
10-24-2008 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by onifre
10-24-2008 6:51 PM


Re: Atheism
Hello onifire, I agree with a great deal with your views and opinions. Except this one.
quote:
only thing that seperates us from them in complexity is our consciousness, and that only seems important to us. No other species that we know of has it and yet they manage just fine without it. But I don't think the rise in complexity is leading to anything in particular, and I don't think that in a few 1000, or even 10,000 years, our morphology needs to change at all, unless there's a major climate change that will presure evolution. In fact if we become a Stage I society, like your buddy Michio says, then we can control the climate and natural forces that tend to drive an evolutionary change, thus never being presured to evolve.

How we define conciousness may differ, but I am of the opinion that my dog is concious. My birds are concious as well, I am almost sure there are other organisms that are concious. Conciousness is not confined to humans in my opinion, but rather a emergent property of the brain. I could of course be wrong. It seems to me once a organism begins to interact with it's environment it exhibits varying levels of conciousness. There is some point I think where instinct and chemistry overidden and the organism makes a choice in how to respond, react to external stimulius. This would be concious behavior I think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by onifre, posted 10-24-2008 6:51 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by onifre, posted 10-24-2008 11:39 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded
 Message 165 by Agobot, posted 10-25-2008 5:06 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 513 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 162 of 185 (486850)
10-24-2008 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by 1.61803
10-24-2008 9:59 PM


Re: Atheism
Hello 1.61803, aka Frank :D its easier.

How we define conciousness may differ, but I am of the opinion that my dog is concious. My birds are concious as well, I am almost sure there are other organisms that are concious. Conciousness is not confined to humans in my opinion, but rather a emergent property of the brain.

I knew when I generalized consciousness I would get nailed on it. I agree that there are levels of consciousness and ours is, by our definition, the highest level. Which I would just describe it as conscious of ourselves and th magnitude of existance.

I should have said 'no other animals has such a complex consciousness as ours'. That we know of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by 1.61803, posted 10-24-2008 9:59 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2008 4:20 AM onifre has responded
 Message 168 by Agobot, posted 10-25-2008 7:25 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11773
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 163 of 185 (486853)
10-25-2008 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by onifre
10-24-2008 11:39 PM


Re: Atheism
I should have said 'no other animals has such a complex consciousness as ours'.

You should have said sentience, remember?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by onifre, posted 10-24-2008 11:39 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by onifre, posted 10-25-2008 8:46 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3092 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 164 of 185 (486859)
10-25-2008 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by 1.61803
10-24-2008 8:42 PM


Re: Atheism
1.61... writes:

As far as I know the known atoms that the body of science has thus far identified are what are charted on the periodic table. Those are the atoms the universe is composed of as well. If you have knowlege of more types of atoms please share with me what they are.

I am not aware of anything else but those 117 atoms. However I am aware that you are not a meaningless combination of atoms. You say it's natural, because that suits your belief and you want to wave off the question why we are fighting entropy. By the same token, i can label my idea of the creator as natural - it's a miracle but it's natural. How do you deal with such methods of reasoning?
BTW we need to establish what we consider a natural cause? Does miracle constitute natural cause? Is the singularity natural? Is the earth natural, considering that it's nothing but 100% empty space? What exactly is "natural" outside of our silly debate where everyone is twisting science to suit his beliefs?

1.61.. writes:

I am indeed concious, and I do have eyes. And although I do agree that if one where to think of the universe as a collective conciousness then yes your statement of me being the eyes and conciousness of the universe would hold some validity. However, I am simply a collection of atoms and universal forces (there are but 4 we know of). As is everything that exist in the cosmos. And try as I might, I can not accept that just because it gives one a warm fuzzy feeling of certainty that it all might just be arbitrary. At least I have the intellectual fortitude and honesty to consider that dreaded possibilty.

It's not the warm feeling that makes for the appearance of a higher entity. When the top scientists of our time start talking about a creator(Charles Darwin inlclusive) , you can be 100% sure that it has nothing to do with warm feelings and desires.

Agobot writes:

Although it's orderly and follows physical laws. Does this make sense to you?

1.61... writes:

those apparent orderly physical laws contain strange quirkyness that is not orderly in the least but caotic and random in some instances. Wave functions and fields propagate in a apparent determnistic fashion. But the uncertainty principal still prevades. And any moment Cave Diver and Son of Goku will be chiming in. But I still contend that stoichiastic randomness is a element of nature. The math can get you there and thats all that counts...pun intended.

What does the quantum world have to do with life and consciousness?
We know too little of it and what we know is that life arises and takes place at a much higher level than QM. And talking about wave functions requires that you mention on which of the interpretations you are basing your assumptions. We still don't know if the apperant randomness in the quantum world has any effect on our classical world. AFAIK, the scientific community is split on the issue. My favourite is the many worlds model - which solves the issue in a very bizarre way: nature is deterministic, and all outcomes actually happen in parallel and you observe just one of them (and the randomness is now replaced with which one you are going to observe, of which many world views have no deeper explanation - so at this point there is indeed something fundamentally random, but it is not in the workings of nature, but in the nature of your subjective observation - i.e. that it's random).

Agobot writes:

It's called the Cause and Effect principle. The cause and effect principle holds everywhere in our classical realm of existence because it's based and follows the laws of physics inherent in the universe. Some elegant examples that rule our world and that act on the Cause and Effect principle:

1.61... writes:

Thomas Aquinas very elegantly argued the Proofs of God and the Prime Mover et al... does not hold water. Cause and effect does not hold water. I challenge you to explain how you can conclude based on just your observations how a cause effects another. You can only assume and conclude there is a relationship. You can not KNOW because you are dependant on your own perceptions and are a part of the system that is doing the observing. Yes common sense and physics etc.. tells us if you push a domino over it will cause the next one to fall. But you can not KNOW it will. Even if you do it a million times you still can not know the millonth and one time if will cause the others to fall. Mathmatically any possible outcomes can occur. All our calculations and knowlege must approximate. Initial conditions can not be duplicated to the exact degree. And the Uncertainty principal will not allow 100 percent accuracy. Reality refuses to be pinned down.

Yes it's called aproximation, nothing is 100% guaranteed. But you are riding planes, right? I am sure you are aware that our classical reality can be pinned down to 99.99%. Yes the earth can disappear tomorrow morning, there is some statistical chance for that arising from some law or effect that we have not yet discovered. And still we are progressing because we count on that 99.99% certainty of outcomes. We even went ahead and called these principles laws and we live by them just like the whole 13.7 billion year universe.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by 1.61803, posted 10-24-2008 8:42 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by 1.61803, posted 10-25-2008 12:40 PM Agobot has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3092 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 165 of 185 (486862)
10-25-2008 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by 1.61803
10-24-2008 9:59 PM


Re: Atheism
1.61... writes:

How we define conciousness may differ, but I am of the opinion that my dog is concious. My birds are concious as well, I am almost sure there are other organisms that are concious. Conciousness is not confined to humans in my opinion, but rather a emergent property of the brain. I could of course be wrong. It seems to me once a organism begins to interact with it's environment it exhibits varying levels of conciousness. There is some point I think where instinct and chemistry overidden and the organism makes a choice in how to respond, react to external stimulius. This would be concious behavior I think.

But they are not conscious of the fact that they exist only in the form of a force that's spread out over a certain volume of 100% empty space. Are they aware that what they are is pure magic? Are they aware that what they are is just + and - and how mind boggling our existence is?


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein

"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by 1.61803, posted 10-24-2008 9:59 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017