Johan Cruyff - Football God.
Statistical evidence of god
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Johan Cruyff - Football God.
KennyJC said:
Can you provide an example of anything of any degree of order that is not caused by either consciousness (or something mysterious that has a cause we cannot trace, eg - the wind)?
Seems like you could be patronizing a few sky fairies yourself ....
KennyJC said:
Then why is there a necessity for the two terms? At least in term sof scientific evidence there is a distinction
KennyJC said:
Doesn't say squat about how consciousness developed from matter, with or without evolution
KennyJC said:
What you are not addressing is how evolution was initiated from dull matter.
We know what forms wind - pressure differentials (see HERE for a quick explanation to assist you).lightgigantic said:
Lightgigantic, your point of argument always seems to come back to your "consciousness is distinct from matter" claim - yet you never show ANY valid evidence for it.lightgigantic said:
You also never define what you mean by "consciousness".
Yes, you can keep stating "Well, what's the difference between a body that is alive and a body that is dead" - and every time we will happily tell you, as best we can, what those differences are and that the differences are entirely physical.
If you can not accept that "consciousness" is an emergent property of the complexity of certain physical forms then you can keep bleating your same question and keep ignoring the evidence and answers you receive.
Evolution is a process of change. The course of rivers "evolve" over time depending on what the water is flowing over, its speed etc. Is a river not merely "dull matter"?lightgigantic said:
Evolution can not and will not state how life began on Earth.
The evolution of life MUST start with the first life-form - not before.
You can not have the evolution of something without first having that something.
As for how life did start - theories on that are still being discussed.
But life DID start - and the fact that we do not yet know how does NOT mean "God did it".
As for the probability of life starting from nothing, try: THIS
Sarkus said:
Then we are left with what causes the sun to exist, since the wind is caused by differences between hot and cold air - we can continue to play this game for as long as you want but I think it is clear that you have access to two types of causes no matter how long you want to meander on in relative truths- mysterious ones and one's due to consciousness
Sarkus said:
Ever seen a dead man inseminate a dead woman and give birth to a child?
Sarkus said:
Doesn't that strike you as a bit primitive - are you trying to say that there is no fundamental difference between a dead person and a living one?
Sarkus said:
If it so obvious please provide evidence of what these certain physical forms are
Sarkus said:
If you follow the causes of a river far enough you end up with another "mystery"
Sarkus said:
my point exactly - so why is it clung to as a means to establish that cosnciousness is not intrinsic to the cosmos?
Sarkus said:
So what is evidence of that first life? What existed before it?
Sarkus said:
What is that something?
Sarkus said:
You seem pretty convionced that god didn't however
lightgigantic said:
Most probably the universe itself. Until there is even a snidge of evidence for your far-fetched claim... then that will always be the simplest and most likely theory.
Because of the timespan between each becomes observable. However, as a force of nature they are both singular under evolution.
But it did develop from matter. It didn't come out of thin air did it?
The 'how' is yet to be known. But it is safe to say that it is an immensely complicated process. Because it is complexed, I am almost certain you will reply with 'God did it'.
Again, we know that it did. But the 'how' can't yet be answered. Even if it was answered, it would reveal a natural process which the theist will always find room to say 'God did it.
No - you only have a mysterious one - the initial cause - or whatever else you want to call it. Everything else is just cause and effect. And if you want to assign "consciousness" to the initial cause then please do.lightgigantic said:
However, there is no evidence that there necessarily was an initial cause - and so there is certainly no evidence that that cause, if there was one, was "conscious".
As I said - there are purely physical differences between "alive" and "dead". These physical differences are what prevent your example - nothing else. If you think there is - PROVIDE EVIDENCE!!!lightgigantic said:
I am saying that there are myriad of differences - FUNDAMENTAL differences - but physical / material differences none-the-less.lightgigantic said:
The lack of a beating heart is one.
The lack of neuro-chemical interactions in the brain.
The inability for the body to carry oxygen around to support the continued existence of the cells.
The continued degredation of the biochemical reactions necessary to sustain the bodily functions.
There are many more, and not being a biologist I have put them in rather simple terms.
Er... start with a non-complex piece of matter - e.g. a rock - or a single crystalline structure (e.g. diamond). I think we both agree that this has no consciousness?lightgigantic said:
Now work up in complexity - all the way to DNA and the cell-structure, and from there to multi-celled organisms - and from there to animal life.
I would say that there is enough evidence there of complexity of physical form.
It's not.lightgigantic said:
Evolution is merely what got us from first life to current life forms.
What existed before it? No life. A rock - a puddle of ooze - some luck. Give it a quick stir. Chuck it under the grill for a billion years or so and see what pops out.lightgigantic said:
As for evidence of first life - there is none - nor can be any. Evolution doesn't care. It only starts when first-life existed.
Yes, we might one day be able to create life out of non-life in a lab - but that would merely show it is possible, not that that is how life on Earth started.
I have no idea how life started - and I do not have a belief that one thing or another was the cause. I merely see the theories.
Occam's Razor certainly puts the "God did it" at the back of the queue, though.
Depends how you define the god.lightgigantic said:
I actually merely do not have a belief that god did.
And I am happy to say "I don't know" where there is no evidence.
KennyJC said:
So in otherwords despite every example of order we are familiar with being due to consciousness, when we come to the issue of the order of the universe, the most logical thing to assume is that it was not caused by consciousness - are we also allowed to request a snidge of evidence for such a far-fetched claim?
KennyJC said:
In other words one is observable and the other is not - sounds like a sky fairy phenomena to me
KennyJC said:But it did develop from matter. It didn't come out of thin air did it?
The question is whether that "matter" was conscious or not - evolution doesn't answer anything in that regard but attempts to shake off the inquiry by taking shelter of relative assumptions
KennyJC said:
I am just raising the question about consciousness - did consciousness evolve from matter or consciousness? You seem to be saying that it came from matter and borrow from the prestige of science "that it is too complex to understand" - another sky fairy philosophy
But back to this thread - if you fully accept macro evolution as a truth despite the evidence of direct perception, how does that operate on different general principles than the idea that an intelligence operates behind the order of the universe?
KennyJC said:
Another sky fairism - we know it is true but we don't know how, and even if we would know how we couldn't properly explain how - particularly difficult I guess since we have no experience of anything of order being directed by anything except intelligence (and of course "mystery" - which you attribute to dull matter despite a lack of evidence)
It seems statistically more reasonable to accept intelligence rather than "matter did it"
Sarkus said:
If there is no initial cause to consciousness why do you talk about (at the end of this post) how consciousness was caused by "grilling" some material componants for a few billion years? If that is what you advocate then please give evidence of that cause giving that effect
Sarkus said:
Okay lets look at what you provide below for evidence for consciousness being attributed to physical matter
Sarkus said:
A heart is just a valve - why not just make a valve and put it in - there are stacks of artificial hearts and even heart transplants too - why is it that despite apllying this "physical addition" to a daed person (or even a person about to die), people still die?
Sarkus said:
Well just slap a bit of electricity and chemicals back in there - if thats all that requires for consciousness
Sarkus said:
There's heaps of oxygen - just put in back in there
Sarkus said:
Why not stop them degrading - actually this indicates how volitile consciusness is - the moment it leaves a body the whole thing becomes completely ruined
Sarkus said:
All these are merely observations of the absence of consciousness - if there is no evidence that by re-establishing these things one can re-establish consciousness why do you declare them as evidence
Sarkus said:
You just missed an important step, namely how diamonds, or dull matter, took on consciousness - at what point did diamonds acquire dna?
Sarkus said:
But unfortunately complex physical form does not equal consciousness, an integral part of your argument that you are neglecting
Sarkus said:
Well according to currect empirical scientific evidence if you boil a puddle of ooze you still end up with a puddle of ooze, unless you want to start talking about sky daddies, science fiction novels and the like
Sarkus said:
Doesn't this statement, in regards to your argument, appear like a contradiction - you establish that life has no cause and that is only the process of evolution that is observable but then you say that evolution starts when life first existed - Maybe I git lost by your ttravel directions but how did we get from dull matter to life first existing?
Sarkus said:
Another sky daddism - better to talk of what you can do now - unles you are in the process of writing a science fiction novel
Sarkus said:
Well to make god a redundant personality you would have to establish how consciousness developed from matter - since you cannot do that it appears you are putting god at the back of the queue not due to scientific evidence but because of your own value system
Sarkus said:
You just put him at the back of the queue - obviously you have some idea of the word
Sarkus said:
Better to abandon your beliefs and just examine the facts - where is that example of order arising from something that is not conscious?
Sarkus said:
You have no evidence yet you just put god at the back - seems your value system doesn't allow you to be happy by saying "I don't know"
lightgigantic said:
The point you are missing is that the universe from our perspective and senses is obviously materialistic. Of course there is always room to say 'God did it', but you can't say that because conciousness (just a word for a complexed material process) can fashion tools that it is proof the universe followed the same principle. Your principle must therefor have a beginning where conciousness played no part, even IF the universe came from a sentient being.
Mine is not the illogical claim here. Most theistic claims have no basis in reality, whilst we find evidence for materialist principles all around us.
No, evidence is found in the fossil record and understanding of genetics, geology etc... If you think the only relevant science is that which can be observed in real-time, then you are wrong. Intelligent design has no evidence and is not observable in anyway shape or form, therefor is not science.
I'll reply to the above later... I am at work.
No - they are observations of the absence of the necessary complex material form required for life.lightgigantic said:
But wait!! Congratulations!! That means you have now defined consciousness as the necessary complex material form for life.
And before you say it - no, a dead body does not have the necessary complex material form.
And no - there is no scientific formula for it yet - and there may never be.
I think I'm beginning to see where your idea of consciousness being a different "form" comes from...
Imagine a lower-limit on a scale - let's call it the "Material Complexity-scale". Once you are above this lower-limit, you have consciousness. Below it you are dull matter.
Your issue is that you can not see how you can cross that line from non-consciousness to consciousness.
You therefore assign consciousness a "form" separate from the material form, which thus removes this problem - as the scale is only based on the material form, not on the new "consciousness form".
I am on the right track - even if in a simple way?
The way I see it - it takes just one thing to go from below the "lower-limit" to above it - and then once above it, that thing gives rise to other material forms that also remain above the limit (through evolution) - and are thus conscious from creation.
Due to the precarious nature of the complexity required to remain above the line, when things "die" - their complexity level drops below the lower-limit - and science can not yet push things from below to above.
The only thing I lack with my interpretation is the evidence of something being pushed from below to above.
The only thing you lack with your interpretation is evidence of the existence of a form, any form, that is distinct from matter.
Occam's Razor would certainly take my interpretation over yours.
KennyJC said:
To remove your statements from the tomes of sky fairism you would have to establish that consciousness is indeed a complexed material process - in other words to advocate that statement you would have to give evidence of the process - in the absence of that you have bad science, which equals a big sky fairy
KennyJC said:
Unless what we know of as matter is contingent on an eternal consciousness or intelligence
KennyJC said:
Consciousness is all around us - it is more intimate than even matter because it is what we are seeing with - cramming phenomena by unestablished processes into that catergory that you take the same path of having no basis in reality - hence its a sky fairy
KennyJC said:
At the very least science should be established by a process - otherwise what is the difference between science and science fiction? As for what we have in the way of fossil records and genetics, they still haven't established macro-evolution - so if you can accept macro evolution why can't the same general principles be applied to accepting consciousness as an integral element of existence? On the one hand you say macro evoluton is okay, despite a lack of direct perecption, but then you switch general principles to say that consciousness in the universe is not ok because there is no direct perception.
KennyJC said:
Same goes with macro -evolution - you just have an array of symptoms and a creative endeavour to justify the cause that exists outside of scientific evidence of process or observation - as for intelligent design, give one example of something of any degree of order that isn't attributed to either consciousness or something "mysterious" that we cannot trace?
Sarkus said:
What exactly is that lower limit? If you could provide a single example of this movement from the lower limit to consciousness you wouldn't have a scientific basis and not a sky daddy imagination
I don't know how you could possibly apply Occam's Razor in this situation because the contingent realities are not established by your evidence
As for perceiving consciousness outside of form that requires the application of the relevant epistemology that is unique to religion - just like perceiving an electron requires that one apply the epistemology of physics to perceive.
IN the absence of a determination to apply the relevant epistemology you are just left with the mystery of symptoms - at the very least you don't see complex constructions forming outside of causes that are either conscious or "mysterious" (mysterious because one does not apply the relevant epistemology to perceive the phenomena)
Inference and statistics do not make for a very appealing belief in God.
I could say I believe in the god of logic and statistic - and it would be a statement adequately presenting my thoughts on the matter.
But such a belief in God just does not get me out of bed in the morning, and it does not make me consider my happiness and the happiness of other beings. If anything, such a belief in God frustrates me and depresses me: I posit that there might be God, but I know nothing about what God is like. He might even be evil or insane. Or I might have only an infinitensimally small chance to know him. Statistics is a terrible outlook to have.
So I probably might as well not have such a logic- and statistics-based belief in God.
Why does someone keep resurrecting these old threads? I guess it's still fun to answer.
Since Darwin, we have learned a great deal about the eye. It's structures are not irreduceable, and the mechanisms for their formation were already well known before the creationists invented this as a reason in support of their hypothesis. In fact, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently. Although there are several broad strategies, many of them converged on the idea of the lens.
Secondly, evolution doesn't work by chance, it is the opposite of chance. A mildly successful eye will confer great benefit, and it's offspring will not have to reinvent it, only improve on it.
Since Darwin, we have learned a great deal about the eye. It's structures are not irreduceable, and the mechanisms for their formation were already well known before the creationists invented this as a reason in support of their hypothesis. In fact, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently. Although there are several broad strategies, many of them converged on the idea of the lens.
Secondly, evolution doesn't work by chance, it is the opposite of chance. A mildly successful eye will confer great benefit, and it's offspring will not have to reinvent it, only improve on it.
I don't think that all happening as it has, in terms of the way everything is, is absurd to it occur on it's own, but it seems very likely there was SOME sort of outside, intelligent intervention.
Life and conciousness is so complex that it is highly, highly unlikely that we, especially, as intelligent creatures, are as we are purely naturally.
Life and conciousness is so complex that it is highly, highly unlikely that we, especially, as intelligent creatures, are as we are purely naturally.
microglitch
Registered Member
OMG all this evidence and you STILL beleive on god...we have been learning about natural selection in svchool (year 9) and it takes millions of years which ALLOW such complex body parts to eveol DUH
Argument from irreduceable complexity. Natural processes explain or offer a credible explanation for the complexity of life. No God is necessary. Seen all at once, yes life is complex, but each step towards that complexity need only be small.
I agree
but such information can make one begin to search for god in earnest