My Beliefs- GDR

Very well explained, Straggler. To me there needs to be no further discussion on the question of why we would sacrifice for the good of someone of a "different" gene pool.If we go back far enough to when our brains evolved the areas responsible for altrusim and in a sense morality you'll find we were from a very small gene pool.- Oni

No one here has said it is simple and straight forward. That's not even close to being true. But you can believe whatever you want I guess. I thought your point was to actually learn something. How? Then you shouldn't say things like you said about QM/consciousness. Because it makes no sense. How do you come to that conclusion? What experiments have shown this? No there isn't anything going on beyond the brain. You're once again arguing from incredulity.There are plenty of answers as to what "all that means" - I would suggest you look it up. Just make sure what you're looking up is from reputable scientists and science depts.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

It's not a "materialist" approach to morality. It is an EVIDENCE based understanding of morality. Any other approach to morality is unevidenced. Or we just evolved complex enough brains that we are free willed. Why would god/tom or any other unevidenced concept be needed here?- Oni

Yes, and you again are wrong to phrase it like that.I have no biases that I bring to this topic. You are mistaking evidence based conclusions for bias opinion.We have evidence, not a bias.- Oni

There is no evidence of any such intelligence. There is only evidence of intelligence arising through a slow, gradual process of evolution.The evidence, however, for evolution and natural processes is overwhelming. It is the only objective evidence we have.- Oni

The reason it tells us nothing is because there is nothing to tell. There is no evidence for an intelligent agency, and frankly I have no idea what a mindless agency even means.Therefore what is the point of trying to find out if evolution is the result of something as unevidenced as an intelligent agency. I mean we equally don't know if evolution is the result of invisible fairies.What we do have evidence for is chemistry, natural selection, elements on Earth, and etc. I don't know what this means dude. I don't think you do either. All we observe is natural processes. Is there objective evidence of anything else?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

You have admitted there is no proof for an intelligent agency, therefore there is no either or in this case.The only thing being investigated is how it happened through natural processes. You can't point to any study investigating intelligent agencies. Your whole insistence on it being either natural or an intelligent agency is pointless.When you say it's either an intelligent agency or not, you are committing the logical fallacy of putting the cart before the horse - we've gone over this - because you don't have any objective proof for an intelligent agency.The ONLY thing there is proof of is, since the Big Bang, the universe and everything in it changes naturally. What intelligence? Some invisible being that you believe in because of a book your read? Yes there is, because there is no evidence of intelligent agencies, or fairies, or invisible unicorns.How flawed is your reasoning at this point?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hey, by all means go seek out the intelligent agency responsible for thunder, I'll go with the evidence that it's a natural process. Let me know how that works out for you. Well, you know, one area is chemistry and the other one biology. So it's different.- Oni

If by "root cause for natural processes" you mean "what sparked this whole universe thing"... then sure, it is not currently known. But life is not the beginning. It is not a place where natural processes began to happen. It is nothing more than chemistry which began roughly 9 billion years after the Big Bang on perhaps many different planets - one we know for sure.So what are you suggesting, that it's been natural processes since the Big Bang and all of a sudden this invisible intelligence began the chemistry that started life? What you believe is irrelevant. What there is evidence for is what is relevant. If we paid attention to what everyone believed we'd be investigating all sorts of imaginary things. See, you continue to be confused. I don't believe anything. I only go where the objective evidence points to.I don't believe there is an intelligent creator guiding everything and I don't believe there isn't one. I don't "believe" in things.When we look at the evidence for how life began, it leads us to more evidence of how things function naturally. We discover new things all the time about the chemsitry of life. Same as with every other scientific endeavor. Can you name a scientific endeavor that hasn't gone that way?However, if there is ever objective evidence for an intelligent creator, then great, we can start to determine what the creator did. But until then, why put the cart before the horse just because you have a belief? I mean, if there is one thing we know for sure it's that everytime we look into what people claim god did it ends up being natural causes. Why is this case any different? Ignorance is truly blissful I guess.- Oni

Sure, but that's very vague. Responsible how? Started the Big Bang then left it alone to evolve naturally? Or is Tom there every step of the way from forming a sun to galaxies to solar systems to planets to biological life?What role does Tom play?Because it seems as though any time you (and others who believe as you do) see a gap in science you see fit to put Tom in that place. But that wouldn't be necessary if you were one of those believers who believe Tom started the Big Bang then let it function on it's own.So when you say Tom was the cause for life to emerge on Earth, but not for the formation of Earth itself because we have a perfectly good workable theory of planetary formation, you A) commit the god of the gaps fallacy and B) run into a logical problem of having to explain why Tom didn't see fit to include himself since the Big Bang, and then only just to build a single cell organism then leave the project alone again.It's very inconsistent at best and logically abhorrent at worse. No ridicule. I just don't know what you were trying to address with all that. Belief doesn't enter my conclusion.I'm sure there are things about the universe we haven't yet discovered, if that answers your question. Of course not. What? I'm not 10 years old, I understand that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. That is an example of a selfish lie, that makes you look good even though you haven't earned it. So it's natural that you would feel guilt.But when my kids were young and they showed me a terrible drawing of something they said was a dog, I didn't tell them the truth. I said it was the best dog I've ever seen. I felt good about that lie because it encouraged them to keep drawing. I don't believe any of that. I don't believe in a universal standard for truthfulness or anything else you care to make up.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

You evaded the question, GDR. You said you believe god created the first single cell life because you don't believe it could happen naturally.I'm asking at what point does god intervene in nature and when doesn't god do that. That's why I asked if you believe god started the Big Bang then did nothing for 9 billion years THEN created the first cell on Earth?I'm trying to understand how you rationalize the fact that the Big Bang was 9 billion years before Earth, give or take, where you would have to believe god did nothing between that time. Then, all of a sudden, decided to create life. Is this what you believe? Dude, you have to realize that this question is nonsensical.Do you mean a fact about the universe beyond what we can objectively prove? If that's the question, then, well who knows?! Will we ever be able to prove a multiverse system beyond mathematical equations? Maybe, who knows.But the way you're asking that question doesn't make sense. Because you didn't earn a degree in physics. When you earn something it gives you a sense of accomplishment. Lying about that doesn't give you that same sense, so you might feel guilty about lying. But of course not everyone feels guilty. Some people are fine lying under and circumstance. No we don't. Just saying that over and over doesn't make it so. Your parents may not have wanted you to lie, or in school they said lying was wrong, because as children they want to know what you're doing. But there is no sense of lying being right or wrong. This is useless nonsense.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

How do you know that? You should read the thread first. GDR has stated that he can't see how life could have emerged without god intervening. From the rest that he writes, he believes every other aspect of the universe changes, evolves and functions naturally.So I'm curious as to how he reasons with that. There is no evidence for gods doing anything.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

When there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for supernatural entities, AND there is a ton of evidence that humans create all kinds of imaginary things to answer what they feel is beyond their understanding, then there is no point to assume the rock rolled down hill because of invisible agents working behind the scenes.Science is a noun; as in, to do science. To investigate. So even if the outcome is god, the way you got there would still be through scientific research that lead you to it.What else would you be filling the gap with if it's not scientific research... Wishful thinking and an uncontrolable imagination?- Oni

This thread is just about done. Why? Well, after 930 post you still don't know what our position is and continue to either not understand or you're being deliberately obtuse.Here are a few examples: We have not said that! You have plenty of posts to read, how are you still confused? This is frustrating to keep having to repeat.We can consider, and not just limited to, god, the matrix, being a computer generated creation, etc...All we're saying is there is no evidence for these considerations. If there ever was then fuck yes! we'd be all over it. It would be great to know. But so far no such luck. For fuck sakes! We have not concluded anything. Stop trying to spin your logical failures onto us. We have not concluded that we are the result of anything, we simply look at the evidence and make no further assumptions about the nature of reality. Certainly not any subjective ones.You're being an asshole at this point. You're not paying attention to what's being said to you, either because you just can't understand what you read (and I don't think that's the case because you can write so you're not an idiot) or you're just doing it deliberately because you have no way of justifying your piss poor logic.Which is it? Wow, that's just...fucking nuts.All you've done is said you believe it is and tried to give a few examples that were quickly refuted. You have not shown anything objectively about the external information outside of the brain (whatever the hell that even means! Frankly it shocks me that some of these terms actually make sense to you). You have no fucking clue what entangled particles (or rather quantum entanglement) even is. Why are you trying to use science words so infuriatingly out of context?And the fact the we perceive the world outside of our bodies is of course the function of our light sensitive ocular devices.Sorry for the language and frustrated attitude but, fuck dude, it's like you've not read one word we've written down. What a waste of time, seriously.- Oni

930 posts! Many of which I have CALMLY said, "Hey, buddy, friend, pal, you have misunderstood, that is not our position. You have it wrong. Here is the correct position." To which he's responding with, "Oh, ok, I see that now" but then goes on to misrepresent us again. I CALMLY say agin, "No, no, you misunderstand. Here is the correct position, again." To which he again replies with, "Oh, ok, I see that now" but fuck if he doesn't misrepresent us again.So, after 930 posts of us correcting him and him acknowledging it but then forgetting it somehow and misrepreseting us again, and really, he does it just so our logic seem as piss poor as his, I can't be calm anymore.Reasonable, yes, he is. Which is why I added the apology. I never do that.Added by edit:Just thought I'd explain further... He said because of scientific evidence we don't need to consider him. He said that is our position. Which is not our position, at least not mine, and from what I've read Straggler to write, not his either.It's not because of scientific evidence that we don't consider 'him' - It's because of the lack of objective evidence for him that we don't consider him.Further more, I can consider anything you want. But first, you have to have evidence to support your 'thing' that I'm to consider.Those two are different positions.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.