Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, just open up YouTube and ask for Richard Dawkins explanation of the evolution of eyes, there's more than one type of eye, he explains it in the very simplest of terms, it's also interesting to follow the evolution of the brain as I can remember acquiring the ability to cook allowed us humans to gain a lot more sustenance from our food which in turn boosted our brain development, have a read about it especially R D's input on this subject.

ippy

Why Richard Dawkins? Sounds like heavy duty crawling on your part Ippy.

[Shaker]

Why Richard Dawkins? Sounds like heavy duty crawling on your part Ippy.

Because he's an evolutionary biologist who has devoted considerable attention to the evolution of the eye, perhaps?

[floo]

That's just you making God in your own image

Doesn't every theist?

[wigginhall]

One of the strange things about AB's posts is his insistence on composition as a kind of argument.   I mean, he tends to say that since the molecules in the brain can't think, how can the brain?   But this is true generally - the molecules in my legs don't know how to walk, so how do my legs?   Molecules in the eye can't see.

I think that modular evolution is relevant here - that evolution does not operate on individual molecules, pace AB, but groups of structures, or systems.   Pity Richard is not here to explain it.

[Maeght]

How amazing? 1, 4, 8.5 , 1 000 000?

Very.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because he's an evolutionary biologist who has devoted considerable attention to the evolution of the eye, perhaps?

Because he's an evolutionary biologist who has devoted considerable attention to the evolution of the eye, perhaps?

Shaker......I've seen it......As I said to everybody who will listen and see beyond their bigoted New Atheist box that I am an evolutionist and am content that evolution can strut its funky stuff.

I am against Dawkins position of equating evolution, science and reason with atheism and his Ultra universal darwinianism. There is now no area of his science Uncontaminated by his belief apparently.

And if you don't want to take my objections I will post those of somebody who I consider to be an anti theist.

[ippy]

Why Richard Dawkins? Sounds like heavy duty crawling on your part Ippy.

Vlad, as Shakes has said in his post, ask the expert, in this case RICHARD DAWKINS RICHARD DAWKINS RICHARD DAWKINS RICHARD DAWKINS RICHARD DAWKINS RICHARD DAWKINSippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, as Shakes has said in his post, ask the expert, in this case RICHARD DAWKINS RICHARD DAWKINS RICHARD DAWKINS RICHARD DAWKINS RICHARD DAWKINS RICHARD DAWKINSippy

I've seen Dawkins expo site on the evolution of the eye and others too.

Look at it this way Ippyif there were two experts in town would you want to go to the one who tries to sell something out of his area of expertise that you aren't interested in?

[Shaker]

I've seen Dawkins expo site on the evolution of the eye and others too.

Look at it this way Ippyif there were two experts in town would you want to go to the one who tries to sell something out of his area of expertise that you aren't interested in?

If you aren't interested what's the problem?

[Sebastian Toe]

If you aren't interested what's the problem obsession?

FIFY!

[Nearly Sane]

NS #21,857
I have had to write this on a document. When I went to answer, the ‘This page can’t be displayed) notice came up again.

No, that’s not what I said at all.    My total person includes my ideas and all aspects of my personality which are given names In order that we humans can talk about them,  how they are similar and how they differ.

You mentioned split personality and I don't see anything here that covers what you mean by 'totally integrated person'

If you don’t know what the aesthetic side of people’s characters is, then I can’t help! Since we humans have had an aesthetic sense since our evolution – of which cave wall paintings are clear evidence– then it must have been and still is a very, probably vitally important survival trait. If you think that having an aesthetic sense needs justification when it is clearly a trait that is constantly selected for, then I am surprised. There is no need for anyone to ‘claim’ this, it remains evident in the human species.

I am well aware that as a species we have a sense of aesthetics. I am asking what the evidence that a sense of aesthetics, which seems to be a very sspecific to you definition of spirituality,  might be important to being is important to being a 'totally integrated person'?

By the way,what is it that you think I was debunking?

You spent note than half the post referring to what some religious people might believe, which seems irrelevant to justifying your own views.

[Alan Burns]

One of the strange things about AB's posts is his insistence on composition as a kind of argument.   I mean, he tends to say that since the molecules in the brain can't think, how can the brain?   But this is true generally - the molecules in my legs don't know how to walk, so how do my legs?   Molecules in the eye can't see.

I think that modular evolution is relevant here - that evolution does not operate on individual molecules, pace AB, but groups of structures, or systems.   Pity Richard is not here to explain it.

It would appear that you have not fully understood my arguments, so I am sorry if I have not fully explained them.

I do understand how random mutations coupled with natural selection can enable beneficial mutations to be passed on to future generations.  But I do question whether totally random events can produce sufficient beneficial mutations to develop the specific complexity we find in the human brain. 

Regarding molecules generating thoughts - there is still no material definition for what comprises thoughts and how they are created.

Groups of molecules can certainly be made to produce complex reactions to light and graphic images, but reaction is not perception.  We have yet to discover a material definition of what comprises perception.

[torridon]

No - you can't assume that something undetectable by human means is nothing.  A better substitution is the word spirituality:
Such tools are incapable of detecting spirituality, but this does not rule out the existence of spirituality.  And spirituality may well be the facilitator of our freedom to choose, making it a reality rather than an illusion

And the evidence for the existence of spirituality is your ability to perceive and consciously interact with your own existence.

Spiritual refers to a state of mind and I don't see how that buys you an escape from determinism.  All choices are made in the context of some or other state of mind;  it is impossible for a mind not to be in a state.  The state of mind probably affects choices made, we make poor choices if we are in a bad mood for instance. 

Maybe, by spiritual, you intended some sort of spiritual soul, some other-wordly mechanism that could be responsible for choice, that being off-planet. would somehow not be constrained by the principle of cause and effect that appears to hold here.   That is just naive magic thinking though; quite apart from the obvious problems that such a thing has not been discovered and the massive problem that such a scenario would render the brain largely redundant, it still doesn't buy you a way out of determinism as the problem of free will is essentially a conceptual problem for you - to be meaningful, a choice has to be a consequence of (ie determined by) its determining factors otherwise it is a random event, and this pertains however a choice is made, whether through a neural system, or a computer, or a soul with magic powers.  Relocating the mechanism of choice to a soul buys you nothing but it creates mountains of new and unnecessary explanatory problems.

[torridon]

And this incredible organ with all its mysterious complexity is automatically generated from the blueprint information contained in a microscopic molecule.

I just wondered if any of the non believers ever doubt the ability of a blind, aimless evolutionary process to produce such an amazingly complex and meaningful entity.

Incredulity alert.

Given that the cosmos has had 14 billion years and is inconceivably vast in extent, I'd pretty much expect that every combination and configuration of matter that were possible would emerge sooner or later, somewhere or other.  Any neuroanatomist will further confirm the human brain is a prime exemplar of incremental evolution suggesting stages of development in the past with new areas of cortex being added to deal with novel conditions.

Contrast that with the idea of a creator god, far more complex than any human brain, just existing out of nowhere with no context with no provenance with no derivation, now that is way more implausible than a complexity that emerges slowly over billions of years.

[floo]

It would appear that you have not fully understood my arguments, so I am sorry if I have not fully explained them.

I do understand how random mutations coupled with natural selection can enable beneficial mutations to be passed on to future generations.  But I do question whether totally random events can produce sufficient beneficial mutations to develop the specific complexity we find in the human brain. 

Regarding molecules generating thoughts - there is still no material definition for what comprises thoughts and how they are created.

Groups of molecules can certainly be made to produce complex reactions to light and graphic images, but reaction is not perception.  We have yet to discover a material definition of what comprises perception.

It may well be explained by science one day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Incredulity alert.

Given that the cosmos has had 14 billion years and is inconceivably vast in extent, I'd pretty much expect that every combination and configuration of matter that were possible would emerge sooner or later, somewhere or other.  Any neuroanatomist will further confirm the human brain is a prime exemplar of incremental evolution suggesting stages of development in the past with new areas of cortex being added to deal with novel conditions.

Contrast that with the idea of a creator god, far more complex than any human brain, just existing out of nowhere with no context with no provenance with no derivation, now that is way more implausible than a complexity that emerges slowly over billions of years.

An interesting final argument described I believe as Dawkins finest but this wouldn't be your morning stroll without some kind of challenge, so here we go.

1: Nobody need pose an unevolved God given that God has an eternity as opposed to a measly 14 billion years.
2: We cannot say what constitutes life. I borrowed that from a big hitting antitheist refuting a theist but can't remember the link.
3: It is a firmly materialist argument with all the problematic baggage that entails.
4: The multiverse as suggested by mathematics might negate or modify gradualism.
5: The unreasonable efficacy of mathematics and the maths based universe.
6: The complexity of maths and its independence of physical influence. In other words the same maths is always available now or 14 million years ago.

[Sebastian Toe]

An interesting final argument described I believe as Dawkins finest but this wouldn't be your morning stroll without some kind of challenge, so here we go.

1: Nobody need pose an unevolved God given that God has an eternity as opposed to a measly 14 billion years.

Are you posing a god who does not reside out of time?

[Alan Burns]

Spiritual refers to a state of mind and I don't see how that buys you an escape from determinism.  All choices are made in the context of some or other state of mind;  it is impossible for a mind not to be in a state.  The state of mind probably affects choices made, we make poor choices if we are in a bad mood for instance. 

Maybe, by spiritual, you intended some sort of spiritual soul, some other-wordly mechanism that could be responsible for choice, that being off-planet. would somehow not be constrained by the principle of cause and effect that appears to hold here.   That is just naive magic thinking though; quite apart from the obvious problems that such a thing has not been discovered and the massive problem that such a scenario would render the brain largely redundant, it still doesn't buy you a way out of determinism as the problem of free will is essentially a conceptual problem for you - to be meaningful, a choice has to be a consequence of (ie determined by) its determining factors otherwise it is a random event, and this pertains however a choice is made, whether through a neural system, or a computer, or a soul with magic powers.  Relocating the mechanism of choice to a soul buys you nothing but it creates mountains of new and unnecessary explanatory problems.

Torri,
Just to confirm (yet again!) that freedom to choose does not mean random.
It means that our choice is determined (not pre determined) by the conscious will of the entity which is "you" rather than by the uncontrollable chains of physical cause and effect within the material entities of the physical brain.  The entity which is "you" is what perceives and interacts with the physical brain to facilitate conscious choice.   This only creates problems if you persist in trying to explaining everything in physical terms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you posing a god who does not reside out of time?

I can pose anything I like Seb. It's just freethinkers who aren't allowed to contemplate any type of God it seems.

[Shaker]

I can pose anything I like Seb. It's just freethinkers who aren't allowed to contemplate any type of God it seems.

Pose is about the right word.

For those among us who like our beliefs to have something more than a merely passing, accidental and occasional relationship to reality, however, simply posing stuff is no more than wankery.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pose is about the right word.

For those among us who like our beliefs to have something more than a merely passing, accidental and occasional relationship to reality, however, simply posing stuff is no more than wankery.

What reality have you got that I don't have Shaker? The reality that there is no God? Show me that's real.

[Shaker]

The fallacies went in two by two oh no ... oh no ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The fallacies went in two by two oh no ... oh no ...

Again Shaker, what reality have you got that I don't have?

[Shaker]

Again Shaker, what reality have you got that I don't have?

Well now ... I understand secularism for starters.

[Alan Burns]

Given that the cosmos has had 14 billion years and is inconceivably vast in extent, I'd pretty much expect that every combination and configuration of matter that were possible would emerge sooner or later, somewhere or other. 

You seem to have no concept of the enormity of random combinations of material entities. 

The same logic says that a large number of monkeys hitting random keys will eventually generate the complete works of Shakespeare.  But in reality you could take several magnitudes more monkeys than the number of atoms in the known universe working from the beginning of time and you would still get nowhere near the true possibility.