Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

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.

How do you claim to know this? (The example uses an infinite number of monkeys, actually, not just a very large number).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well now ... I understand secularism for starters.

So do I and acknowledge others definitions instead of turd polishing them.

But that's form for you guys.

How does it go?

Secularism does not include the New Atheistfest which is the BHA and NSS

[Shaker]

So do I

Errr ... no. Example:

Secularism does not include the New Atheistfest which is the BHA and NSS

[torridon]

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.

'Physical' is neither here nor there, this is an irrelevant red herring.  Your problem is conceptual, it is not to do with some or other implementation.  A choice that is not a function of its relevant considerations is not a choice at all, it is a random event. Can you explain how a soul could make a meaningful choice that was free of the relevant considerations and yet be not random ?

[torridon]

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.

That's not really an appropriate comparison. Complexity does not spring from nowhere, it builds gradually over time. In the beginning there was plasma; this later led to atomic matter, which in turn gave rise to molecular matter which under the action of gravity led to stars and planets and galaxies and hence the periodic table, hence complex carbon compounds and amino acids and proteins and life and eventually Shakespeare.  Complexity builds incrementally, just like Newton standing on the shoulders of giants, it builds on what has gone before.

[Alan Burns]

'Physical' is neither here nor there, this is an irrelevant red herring.  Your problem is conceptual, it is not to do with some or other implementation.  A choice that is not a function of its relevant considerations is not a choice at all, it is a random event. Can you explain how a soul could make a meaningful choice that was free of the relevant considerations and yet be not random ?

Free from physically pre determined events, but initiated by the spiritual conscious will of the human soul.  I am not nature's robot.  I am a spiritual being with conscious control of my physical body.  My thoughts, words and actions derive from my God given soul, not the aimless forces of nature.

[Enki]

That's not really an appropriate comparison. Complexity does not spring from nowhere, it builds gradually over time. In the beginning there was plasma; this later led to atomic matter, which in turn gave rise to molecular matter which under the action of gravity led to stars and planets and galaxies and hence the periodic table, hence complex carbon compounds and amino acids and proteins and life and eventually Shakespeare.  Complexity builds incrementally, just like Newton standing on the shoulders of giants, it builds on what has gone before.

I appreciate what you are saying, Torri, but this has been pointed out to AB so many times that I cannot think otherwise than that he either cannot understand it, or he simply rejects this line of thinking completely and sticks with the monkey comparison as he finds it so much easier to deal with.

[floo]

Free from physically pre determined events, but initiated by the spiritual conscious will of the human soul.  I am not nature's robot.  I am a spiritual being with conscious control of my physical body.  My thoughts, words and actions derive from my God given soul, not the aimless forces of nature.

That is what you are desperate to believe, even though you can't supply any evidence to back it up.

[Alan Burns]

That's not really an appropriate comparison. Complexity does not spring from nowhere, it builds gradually over time. In the beginning there was plasma; this later led to atomic matter, which in turn gave rise to molecular matter which under the action of gravity led to stars and planets and galaxies and hence the periodic table, hence complex carbon compounds and amino acids and proteins and life and eventually Shakespeare.  Complexity builds incrementally, just like Newton standing on the shoulders of giants, it builds on what has gone before.

But the specific complexity we find in the life forms on this earth have not yet been evidenced in other parts of the known universe.

If the complexity of life is a natural occurrence, this vast universe should be teaming with life.

[torridon]

Free from physically pre determined events, but initiated by the spiritual conscious will of the human soul.  I am not nature's robot.  I am a spiritual being with conscious control of my physical body.  My thoughts, words and actions derive from my God given soul, not the aimless forces of nature.

That's avoiding the question; you've merely lapsed back into your mantras.  Try again - can you explain how the 'spiritual conscious will of the human soul' could make a meaningful choice that was free of the relevant considerations and yet be not random ?

[Shaker]

But the specific complexity

What does that mean?

we find in the life forms on this earth have not yet been evidenced in other parts of the known universe.

That's right. And?

If the complexity of life is a natural occurrence, this vast universe should be teaming with life.

Non sequitur.

[torridon]

But the specific complexity we find in the life forms on this earth have not yet been evidenced in other parts of the known universe.

If the complexity of life is a natural occurrence, this vast universe should be teaming with life.

See Fermi paradox.

Good question.

The answer, in part, is probably that simple life is widespread, but simple life is not easy for us to detect at huge interstellar distances.  Complex life, eg advanced civilisations are probably extremely rare.

[wigginhall]

Amazing how the same tired arguments crop up again and again - for example, the monkey/typewriter one.  Torridon has dealt with this.   The problem for the monkey is that it starts afresh each time, evolution does not.   

But as enki has just pointed out, one cannot really argue with those who are blind and deaf.   

[Sebastian Toe]

I can pose anything I like Seb.

I know that you can. But are you posing that specifically is what I asked?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I know that you can. But are you posing that specifically is what I asked?

I posed it. If God WAS evolved he would still be our God would he not.? The point is if God was that particular God we'd still have God.

But any statement such as there is probably not a God because he would have to have evolved, the Dawkins argument, stands to being comprehensively fucked if there was an evolved God.........Do you not agree?

In any case what I posited was several evolved Gods. An eternally evolved God, An instaneously evolved God and a rapidly evolved God

May I also remind you of the several other objections to his theory as listed by me.

[Gordon]

I posed it. If God WAS evolved he would still be our God would he not.? The point is if God was that particular God we'd still have God.

But any statement such as there is probably not a God because he would have to have evolved, the Dawkins argument, stands to being comprehensively fucked if there was an evolved God.........Do you not agree?

But not if there isn't an evolved God.

In any case what I posited was several evolved Gods. An eternally evolved God, An instaneously evolved God and a rapidly evolved God

Sounds a bit like alternative recipes for bread: are you sure you've thought this through?

May I also remind you of the several other objections to his theory as listed by me.

Please do: I must have missed them.

[BeRational]

But the specific complexity we find in the life forms on this earth have not yet been evidenced in other parts of the known universe.

If the complexity of life is a natural occurrence, this vast universe should be teaming with life.

How much of the known universe have we explored?

The universe may indeed be teeming with life, how would we know?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But not if there isn't an evolved God.

Sounds a bit like alternative recipes for bread: are you sure you've thought this through?

Please do: I must have missed them.

Reply #21890 This thread as of 13.31 hours.

[floo]

But the specific complexity we find in the life forms on this earth have not yet been evidenced in other parts of the known universe.

If the complexity of life is a natural occurrence, this vast universe should be teaming with life.

So are you really trying to state that god reserved this planet for intelligent life forms, and no others exist in this vast universe of ours? 

I wonder if this thread will eventually be entered for the Guinness Book of records, for not only its length, but its repetition?

[Gordon]

Reply #21890 This thread as of 13.31 hours.

You mean this effort:

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.

None of the above appear to be in any sense coherent.

Try again.

[Alan Burns]

That's avoiding the question; you've merely lapsed back into your mantras.  Try again - can you explain how the 'spiritual conscious will of the human soul' could make a meaningful choice that was free of the relevant considerations and yet be not random ?

Of course it is not free from relevant considerations, but it is still a deliberate choice wilfully initiated from our conscious self.

Science does not define the conscious self, so it can't be used to explain how the conscious self initiates a deliberate act of will.

[Maeght]

Of course it is not free from relevant considerations, but it is still a deliberate choice wilfully initiated from our conscious self.

Science does not define the conscious self, so it can't be used to explain how the conscious self initiates a deliberate act of will.

Which doesn't answer the question. The question I and others have asked so many times with no answer. Will this time be any different I wonder.

[Shaker]

No.

[ippy]

Which doesn't answer the question. The question I and others have asked so many times with no answer. Will this time be any different I wonder.

It's no good trying with A B, he's just a slight bit more articulate version of Vlad and look how Vlad can't even get his head around Humanism or Secularism; A B's a lost cause too, where the pity of it is, how much of this unsupported nonsense he'll be merrily passing on to future generations which is far worse than just him with his head buried in the sand.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

So are you really trying to state that god reserved this planet for intelligent life forms, and no others exist in this vast universe of ours? 

All I am implying is that if life does exist in other parts of the universe, it will be there through the will of God.