Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

It struck me recently how capable human beings are at making assumptions.

We can assume that the universe came into existence by an unintended natural event.

We can assume that the very precise conditions needed for the formation of planets, stars and solar systems were also just an unintentional consequence of natural events.

We can assume that the bringing into existence of self replicating cells was also a natural, unintended process done by random events, even though humans have never been able to achieve this using raw materials.

We can assume that every single mutation needed bring life into existence as we know it was achieved by random events.

We can assume that conscious self awareness is just an emergent property of material reactions.

We can assume that our ability to make consciously driven choices is just an illusion.

We can assume that every reported miracle must have a natural explanation.


Alternatively we can assume God

That is a bigger assumption than all the others put together though 

[Alan Burns]

That is a bigger assumption than all the others put together though 

And the ability to form personal opinions is another unique human trait.   

[torridon]

And the ability to form personal opinions is another unique human trait.   

When a peahen choose one peacock in preference to another peacock, it is expressing its personal opinion of the relative merits of the tail display.  What marks humans out is the greater degree of abstraction we can model and form opinions around. 

[Alan Burns]

When a peahen choose one peacock in preference to another peacock, it is expressing its personal opinion of the relative merits of the tail display.  What marks humans out is the greater degree of abstraction we can model and form opinions around. 

And here you are presuming to know that peahens make personally driven choices rather than following instinctive predefined reactions. 

[Gordon]

It struck me recently how capable human beings are at making assumptions.

We can assume that the universe came into existence by an unintended natural event.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: investigation continues.

We can assume that the very precise conditions needed for the formation of planets, stars and solar systems were also just an unintentional consequence of natural events.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: investigation continues.

We can assume that the bringing into existence of self replicating cells was also a natural, unintended process done by random events, even though humans have never been able to achieve this using raw materials.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: investigation continues.

We can assume that every single mutation needed bring life into existence as we know it was achieved by random events.

No we can't, but investigation continues.

We can assume that conscious self awareness is just an emergent property of material reactions, though we have no idea how it works and it is a process we are unable to replicate.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: investigation continues.

We can assume that our ability to make consciously driven choices is just an illusion, because everything is assumed to be a consequence of physically predefined material reactions.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: investigation continues.

We can assume that every reported miracle must have a natural explanation.

That there is a report at all has a natural explanation: people, and people are known to make mistakes, exaggerate and lie so that these risks needs to be addressed prior to assumptions of anything non-natural being an explanation. I've often asked how miracle supporters have addressed these risks but, alas, it seems they haven't.

Alternatively we can assume God

Or we can await further evidence and not let our personal incredulity overwhelm us.

[torridon]

And here you are presuming to know that peahens make personally driven choices rather than following instinctive predefined reactions. 

Clearly they are making personal choices otherwise they would all make the same choice.  They make choices according to their personal preference. Every brain is unique and this is true not just of every human, but every zebra, otter and hummingbird also.

[Enki]

It struck me recently how capable human beings are at making assumptions.

We can assume that the universe came into existence by an unintended natural event.

We can assume that the very precise conditions needed for the formation of planets, stars and solar systems were also just an unintentional consequence of natural events.

We can assume that the bringing into existence of self replicating cells was also a natural, unintended process done by random events, even though humans have never been able to achieve this using raw materials.

We can assume that every single mutation needed bring life into existence as we know it was achieved by random events.

We can assume that conscious self awareness is just an emergent property of material reactions, though we have no idea how it works and it is a process we are unable to replicate.

We can assume that our ability to make consciously driven choices is just an illusion, because everything is assumed to be a consequence of physically predefined material reactions.

We can assume that every reported miracle must have a natural explanation.


Alternatively we can assume God

This struck me a long time ago, AB. That is one reason why I always look at as much evidence as possible before I can be confident enough to assume something to be correctly explained not in any absolute sense, you understand, but provisionally, with the proviso  that if any  further evidence comes to light, this explanation can be modified or rejected depending upon the quality of the new evidence.

Your last assumption(that we can assume God) is not an assumption I can make because as far as I can tell there is zero evidence for this assumption.  so, I'm not sure on what grounds you would consider that I should consider this assumption to be worthwhile. perhaps you could enlighten me?

[Shaker]

But there are two authorities involved here, Gordon, and I am in no doubt about which is the higher authority.   How about you?

I don't know about Gordon, though I could hazard a guess.

I am in zero doubt that there is any other authority than the ones sentient creatures claim. I have zero reason to think so, as I have been furnished with zero credible reasons to.

Assuming ad hoc pseudo-explanations that explain nothing (since the purported explanation itself demands explanation) is about as good an example of the old logical precept ignotum per ignotius, i.e. the unknown by the even more unknown as I can conceive. The pseudo-explanation of saying that unexplained X is explained by unexplained Y is no explanation at all. The important links in the explanatory chain are missing. It's no more than "I don't know, so let me invoke something else I don't know to explain away what I don't know". Reprehensible.

[Alan Burns]

That is what the evidence to date suggests: investigation continues.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: investigation continues.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: investigation continues.

No we can't, but investigation continues.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: investigation continues.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: investigation continues.

That there is a report at all has a natural explanation: people, and people are known to make mistakes, exaggerate and lie so that these risks needs to be addressed prior to assumptions of anything non-natural being an explanation. I've often asked how miracle supporters have addressed these risks but, alas, it seems they haven't.

Or we can await further evidence and not let our personal incredulity overwhelm us.

But often the evidence reveals more mystery than solution.  For example, a recent discovery of stromatolites from the receding ice in Greenland pushes the supposed date for the origin of life back to 3.7 billion years ago.  Indicating that the delicate ingredients for life (proteins, genetic codes, photosynthesis ...) developed virtually overnight following the heavy bombardment of the earth from asteroids.  This would indicate that life can occur virtually spontaneously even under the harshest conditions, yet scientists can't come close to producing even a single cell from raw chemicals in the lab.  It seems that the more we dig, the more improbable - rather than likely - the formation of life by natural means becomes.

[Alan Burns]

Your last assumption(that we can assume God) is not an assumption I can make because as far as I can tell there is zero evidence for this assumption.  so, I'm not sure on what grounds you would consider that I should consider this assumption to be worthwhile. perhaps you could enlighten me?

The fact is that our conscious awareness is capable of perceiving meaning and purpose in life.  Yet meaning and purpose are inherently missing in any natural explanation for life's existence, which would be based upon the meaningless, aimless, random events of nature.  The concepts of meaning and purpose must be derived from supernatural, rather than natural sources.  Our ability to assume comes from God - not from nature, because it must have been God's intention for us to perceive meaning and purpose in our lives in this otherwise entirely deterministic material world.

[Sebastian Toe]

.......developed virtually overnight .....

Could you present that in actual time taken?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But there are two authorities involved here, Gordon, and I am in no doubt about which is the higher authority.   How about you?

Here Gordon contradicteth himself by both calling for utter obedience to the ultimate authority of the Law and formerly wanting the Law changed.


Once again Gordon pulls  the mintyest, stripeyist humbug.

[Gordon]

Here Gordon contradicteth himself by both calling for utter obedience to the ultimate authority of the Law and formerly wanting the Law changed.


Once again Gordon pulls  the mintyest, stripeyist humbug.

Er - you do realise that you're responding to AB here, since you've quoted him, and not me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Er - you do realise that you're responding to AB here, since you've quoted him, and not me.

But he is talking about you and I am talking to him about you.

[Gordon]

But he is talking about you and I am talking to him about you.

That's nice: and where in my recent exchange with Alan in this thread did I say I wanted the law changed?

[Enki]

The fact is that our conscious awareness is capable of perceiving meaning and purpose in life.  Yet meaning and purpose are inherently missing in any natural explanation for life's existence, which would be based upon the meaningless, aimless, random events of nature.  The concepts of meaning and purpose must be derived from supernatural, rather than natural sources.  Our ability to assume comes from God - not from nature, because it must have been God's intention for us to perceive meaning and purpose in our lives in this otherwise entirely deterministic material world.

Thank you for responding, AB, but I find your response entirely unsatisfactory, and here is why.

May I start by suggesting that you watch and listen to this short video by Neil De Grasse Tyson which reflects my considered feelings and arguments perfectly adequately about  meaning and purpose in the universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pL5vzIMAhs

As you will no doubt have gathered if you watched this video, I too have never found there to be any particular meaning and purpose to life of the kind that you seem to embrace, and, although it is possible of course,  I find no particular justification for thinking that such meaning exists.

On the contrary, it seems to me that it is I who assign meaning to my life rather than simply perceive it. What gives meaning to my life might well not be the same as that of another person, although there seems to be certain recurring threads which suggest that evolutionary pressures give meaningful satisfaction in specific directions, such as a sense of belonging or a sense of the importance of family, In my case, I also find my interest in the broad width of nature and curiosity about the origins of humankind to be satisfactorily meaningful, just as my interest in certain types of music and dance give me pleasure and therefore meaning. It is also true for me that things which I find meaningful have changed as I progress through life. Another person will find their own meanings according to their own distinct personality.

I see no reason why the concept of meaning within a human being should be anything other than a natural phenomenon. I certainly don't see any evidence at all for any supernatural source and to simply assert your God(or any god) gives us the ability to assume is a statement, I suggest, without any foundation. The idea that 'it must have been God's intention for us to perceive meaning and purpose in our lives in this otherwise entirely deterministic material world.' falls miserably at the first hurdle, because it assumes the presence of said God, when there is no evidence that He exists, and no reason is given as to why the idea of meaning and purpose in life cannot be an extremely powerful survival  mechanism, in which case no god is needed.

[Alan Burns]

Could you present that in actual time taken?

It was a quote I read from an article in the New York times.  I do not know the precise time interval involved, but in essence it implies that there was much less time for the essential ingredients for life to develop than was previously assumed.

[SteveH]

well said, Shaker and DU.  SotS will probably disappear again until he thinks everyone will have  forgotten about his post hereabouts!

SOTS has gone for good - see "banned" thread. Good bloody riddance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's nice: and where in my recent exchange with Alan in this thread did I say I wanted the law changed?

It's like this Gordon, If you say that it doesn't matter what one believes because there is the Law on something...….that Law has not always been in place. If you are satisfied with the Law now that means you were probably unsatisfied with the previous formulation of the law.

For example you disapproved of the Law towards gay people getting married  and publicly expressed that...Now that Law has changed , according to you, it no longer matters what people think because the Law is the Law.

Do you see the contradictory nonsense?

[Gordon]

It's like this Gordon, If you say that it doesn't matter what one believes because there is the Law on something...….that Law has not always been in place. If you are satisfied with the Law now that means you were probably unsatisfied with the previous formulation of the law.

You really do need to think before you post, Vlad: I have simply noted that whatever the current law is on anything it is authoritative within its jurisdiction. What I think of the law is another matter entirely and, as I pointed put and you have ignored, I can recognise that laws have authority while disagreeing with what laws enforce - so stop misrepresenting me.

For example you disapproved of the Law towards gay people getting married  and publicly expressed that

No I didn't: quite the opposite in fact (I supported the change to allow SSM), so I'll await your apology.

...Now that Law has changed , according to you, it no longer matters what people think because the Law is the Law.

Another straw man: that people comply with the law doesn't prevent them from seeking to have it changed, as has been the case with legal marriage. For the record, just so you don't get confused again, this was a change I fully supported.

Do you see the contradictory nonsense?

Indeed I do, so stop posting contradictory nonsense and do some homework before you misrepresent others. 

[torridon]

The fact is that our conscious awareness is capable of perceiving meaning and purpose in life.  Yet meaning and purpose are inherently missing in any natural explanation for life's existence, which would be based upon the meaningless, aimless, random events of nature.  The concepts of meaning and purpose must be derived from supernatural, rather than natural sources.  Our ability to assume comes from God - not from nature, because it must have been God's intention for us to perceive meaning and purpose in our lives in this otherwise entirely deterministic material world.

No reason to suppose any of that is correct.  It's an example of what Shaker has given us - ignotum per ignotius - you are explaining something hard to understand - meaning - by proposing something impossible to understand - God.  Lazy, irrational thinking that seeks to avoid the effort of understanding the nature of what it is to be human.

[Sebastian Toe]

It was a quote I read from an article in the New York times.  I do not know the precise time interval involved, but in essence it implies that there was much less time for the essential ingredients for life to develop than was previously assumed.

Ah, so 200 million years instead of 300 million years for example?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I didn't: quite the opposite in fact (I supported the change to allow SSM), so I'll await your apology.

That is a ridiculous request. Stating that  supporting a change to allow SSM is not supporting a change in the law. How can that be an opposite?

[Gordon]

That is a ridiculous request. Stating that  supporting a change to allow SSM is not supporting a change in the law. How can that be an opposite?

Which isn't what I said - I read your post as you thinking I was opposed to legal changes so as to allow SSM, which I wasn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which isn't what I said - I read your post as you thinking I was opposed to legal changes so as to allow SSM, which I wasn't.

No what I wanted to get across was that anyone supporting changes in the law cannot in all conscience then argue that it isn't fitting to support any change to the new law or the old formulation because it is the new law.


My intention was that IMHO you are arguing that peoples' wishes for the old law are invalidated by the fact that the new law is the law. Which contradicts your position of thinking your wishes for a change of law is valid.