The Beginning of Life (Universe, explanation, truth, consciousness)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(1) the Evidence is demonstrably that " the universe and every facet of it operates in accordance with laws and principles that can be discovered". If you want to deny that, then you are denying the science that - like so many others of the human species - you rely on unquestioningly every day to work as science predicts.
(2) The bottom line - origins and so on - though progress on that is being made - are Unknowns and are no evidence for the supernatural. Nor do they in any way debunk or dicsredit what we can rely on as demonstrated by science.
(3) An overarching intelligence is not more plausible nor obvious, though I will conceded that it may appeal more to those who, not knowing makes things happen, supposes some some huge invisible being is doing it.
Might be the notion of overarching intelligence is a result of underarching intelligence, but what arch of intelligence must we possess to distinguish one from the other?
::Sigh:: They are NOT explanations. Explanations explain how the observed result occurs not merely when and why we observe it. What the heck does self-organizing actually mean? It seems to mean that organization occurs without any explicable causal chain . The same is true for most observations of emergence. There are over 7 billion "cellular" instances of intelligence that we know of here on earth alone. Your inability to conceive of a multicellular Reality comprised of individual cellular entities is a failure of your cognitive abilities. Your cognitions seem conditioned to separate entities.
"Seven billion cellular instances of intelligence?"
At my last count it was more like eight billion, but I've seen a lot of dead brain cells floating around in this forum, so maybe there is evidence that justifies I revise the number downward. Have you got anything like that to confirm?
"Seven billion cellular instances of intelligence?"
At my last count it was more like eight billion, but I've seen a lot of dead brain cells floating around in this forum, so maybe there is evidence that justifies I revise the number downward. Have you got anything like that to confirm?
What does the actual number matter? There are plenty of "cells" of intelligence within our tiny portion of Reality to justify the concept of a multicellular intelligent Reality. You may chose not to accept it, but its existence does not depend on your acceptance.
What does the actual number matter? There are plenty of "cells" of intelligence within our tiny portion of Reality to justify the concept of a multicellular intelligent Reality. You may chose not to accept it, but its existence does not depend on your acceptance.
I was just curious how you came up with your number of 7 million...
Still curious if you have something of substance to back up some of these "facts" you keep throwing out there, but sadly it's time for me to sign off now. The number probably doesn't matter any more than facts do, but again I like to distinguish facts from fiction when possible. If I am ever to get an answer about this too, I'll have to wait until at least tomorrow to learn what it is, if I should return then again. I'm never quite sure I should...
Might be the notion of overarching intelligence is a result of underarching intelligence, but what arch of intelligence must we possess to distinguish one from the other?
Just enough to be able to employ the methods of critical thinking; logical reasoning and validated evidence. That'll do just fine. And one doesn't have to be a genius to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I missed the science that was being rejected. Can you be specific with respect to what you are referring to?
Let me guess Arach is simply taking Raff's Law and accusing us of it, without troubling to think too much about it - neither that No valid science is rejected by atheists (or so I trust), even if it did seem to help the theist cause, nor that he is arguing a theist - type atheist bash, and a tricky and dishonest one, as well.
Is it any wonder that this is one "Atheist" that I would have excommunicated, if it were indeed a Religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I was just curious how you came up with your number of 7 million...
Still curious if you have something of substance to back up some of these "facts" you keep throwing out there, but sadly it's time for me to sign off now. The number probably doesn't matter any more than facts do, but again I like to distinguish facts from fiction when possible. If I am ever to get an answer about this too, I'll have to wait until at least tomorrow to learn what it is, if I should return then again. I'm never quite sure I should...
I wouldn't let it trouble your sleep, old son, (or Old Mate', since some have taken offence as the non -offensive term - or so not intended to be) since we either have a plausible explanation for any valid scientific mystery (validated phenomenon that is not understood) that Mystic can trot out, with confirming evidence or still awaiting it, or it is an Unexplained, which like 'Unknowns' neither prove nor disprove a god.
This means that Mystic is again trying to bamboozle us with Woo and I think we are wise to this (1), and he is wasting his efforts.
(1) specifically, he is being misled with the Faith -claim that a god exists until natural explanations that do not require a god are proven for Every Question. This is the basic logical flaw of all arguments for a god and is why their arguments are irrational from the get -go.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-23-2020 at 03:07 PM..
I was just curious how you came up with your number of 7 million...
It was OVER 7 Billion, BTW.
Quote:
Still curious if you have something of substance to back up some of these "facts" you keep throwing out there, but sadly it's time for me to sign off now. The number probably doesn't matter any more than facts do, but again I like to distinguish facts from fiction when possible. If I am ever to get an answer about this too, I'll have to wait until at least tomorrow to learn what it is, if I should return then again. I'm never quite sure I should...
You seem quite adept at pretending not to understand the perspective of our Reality as a single entity composed of multicellular components that you prefer to consider separately. Do you, Harry, and Arq practice this pretense or does it come naturally to you? I realize that it is not easy to see our Reality from the outside while we are immersed within it. That requires a degree of abstract thinking that seems to elude most of you.
Just enough to be able to employ the methods of critical thinking; logical reasoning and validated evidence. That'll do just fine. And one doesn't have to be a genius to use it.
Let me guess Arach is simply taking Raff's Law and accusing us of it, without troubling to think too much about it - neither that No valid science is rejected by atheists (or so I trust), even if it did seem to help the theist cause, nor that he is arguing a theist - type atheist bash, and a tricky and dishonest one, as well.
Is it any wonder that this is one "Atheist" that I would have excommunicated, if it were indeed a Religion.
I wouldn't let it trouble your sleep, old son, (or Old Mate', since some have taken offence as the non -offensive term - or so not intended to be) since we either have a plausible explanation for any valid scientific mystery (validated phenomenon that is not understood) that Mystic can trot out, with confirming evidence or still awaiting it, or it is an Unexplained, which like 'Unknowns' neither prove nor disprove a god.
This means that Mystic is again trying to bamboozle us with Woo and I think we are wise to this (1), and he is wasting his efforts.
(1) specifically, he is being misled with the Faith -claim that a god exists until natural explanations that do not require a god are proven for Every Question. This is the basic logical flaw of all arguments for a god and is why their arguments are irrational from the get -go.
there you go again ... tossing cheap shots from a hiding position.
yes, I am accursing you of not applying the same rules to atheist claims as you do theist claims. You use science when it suits you and you get it outlawed when it doesn't suit you. You did it twice.
"Seven billion cellular instances of intelligence?"
At my last count it was more like eight billion, but I've seen a lot of dead brain cells floating around in this forum, so maybe there is evidence that justifies I revise the number downward. Have you got anything like that to confirm?
look at it this way ... would you consider your big toe aware? Would you consider DNA alive?
how is all the little bio-machines in a cell working together to make "alive" different than all the cells in the biosphere making it match "alive"?
its such a simple and elegant claim I have no idea why people with deeply held statement of belief god running their lives have to avoid it ... oh wait, yes I do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arach is simply taking Raff's Law and accusing us of it, without troubling to think too much about it - neither that No valid science is rejected by atheists (or so I trust), even if it did seem to help the theist cause, nor that he is arguing a theist - type atheist bash, and a tricky and dishonest one, as well. 