The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design

BIGFOOT said:
The problem is that we ca do away with the idea of a God. But this never answers the proverbial question. "Then, why are we here?" You see, nothing explains the presence of Man on earth, and why he is different from other animals. Is Man different from other animals? Yes! Man, is the only animal that gives itself an identity, and gives other animals identity. A dog, does not know that its a dog. When in expresses its dogginess, it does not know thatthat, is doginess. Its man who gives this behavior as doginess. So, why does man have this very strange character?

So, going away with God, is just a matter of jumping from one rabbit hole into another.
Click to expand...

Belief in godfantasy does not answer any questions, including "Why are we here?" You see, nothing explains the presence of gods and why they are different from other animals.
Humans are not the only animals with identity. Dogs do know they are dogs, of course.
It is not a matter of doing away with gods until it can be shown there IS anything to do away with.
 
It rather depends on one's personal concept of god.
If we assume that we evolved to fill an ecological niche, then that can be seen as intelligent design, which then defines "GOD" as the shared coevolutionary biom, and, symbiosis then becomes our contract with "GOD".
Ignorance of, and violations of our symbiotic responsibilities then becomes "Sin".

................
Have you sinned today?
 
Last edited:
But such an assumption begs the question, surely?
It presupposes that the direction of evolution was toward the niche, that filling the niche was the purpose of evolution.
So I find that assumption unwarranted.
 
sculptor said:
It rather depends on one's personal concept of god.
If we assume that we evolved to fill an ecological niche, then that can be seen as intelligent design, which then defines "GOD" as the shared coevolutionary biom, and, symbiosis then becomes our contract with "GOD".
Ignorance of, and violations of our symbiotic responsibilities then becomes "Sin".

................
Have you sinned today?
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with your logic, because, it summarized what the bible teaches.
"symbiosis then becomes our contract with "GOD". Ignorance of, and violations of our symbiotic responsibilities then becomes "Sin"."
Meaning, "We need one another" "love your neighbor as you love yourself" "Do unto others as you wish it done to yourself" Love your God with all your heart with all your mind with all your soul" "Do not wastes" Sounds comonsensical.
 
Sarkus said:
But such an assumption begs the question, surely?
It presupposes that the direction of evolution was toward the niche, that filling the niche was the purpose of evolution.
So I find that assumption unwarranted.
Click to expand...
"It presupposes that the direction of evolution was toward the niche, that filling the niche was the purpose of evolution" You are very right. Although you find this assumption unwarranted, there is no other logical conclusion that can be drawn as to the purpose of the creation of earth, other than it was created with the appearance of Man in mind. And as outrageous as it may sound, you are the reason the earth exists! You are that important to the creator.
 
BIGFOOT said:
I pretty much agree with your logic, because, it summarized what the bible teaches.
"symbiosis then becomes our contract with "GOD". Ignorance of, and violations of our symbiotic responsibilities then becomes "Sin"."
Meaning, "We need one another" "love your neighbor as you love yourself" "Do unto others as you wish it done to yourself" Love your God with all your heart with all your mind with all your soul" "Do not wastes" Sounds comonsensical.
Click to expand...

The bible teaches mostly hate, fear & violence. If ignorance were sin, theists would be the worst sinners. What sin is, tho, is disobeying god(s) so until some god(s) gets up the courage to come out of hiding & show itself, there is no such thing as sin. IF we have symbiotic responsibilities, you betray them by claiming to believe in childish nonsense, claiming as fact things you cannot support & trying to convince others to believe it. I cannot love something which does not exist & neither can you.
 
BIGFOOT said:
"It presupposes that the direction of evolution was toward the niche, that filling the niche was the purpose of evolution" You are very right. Although you find this assumption unwarranted, there is no other logical conclusion that can be drawn as to the purpose of the creation of earth, other than it was created with the appearance of Man in mind. And as outrageous as it may sound, you are the reason the earth exists! You are that important to the creator.
Click to expand...
First, you start with the assumption that there is a purpose to the creation of the earth, which is an unwarranted a priori assumption. Any support for this assumption, other than through question-begging or cyclical argument?
Second, even accepting the first (which I don't) you assume that Man is the purpose for the creation, which you only assume presumably because you accept the veracity of scriptures. But again, any support for this assumption, or for the veracity of the scriptures?
Given that Man has only been around for c.200,000 years (since branching off of Homo sapiens) and that dinosaurs were around for some 65 million years, and cockroaches are some 20-30 million years old as an order of insects... it seems somewhat arrogant to assume we are the purpose of the world, even if it was created with a purpose. It fits all other species just as well, if not better, than it suits us. One could in fact just see Homo sapiens as a means of transporting bacteria around the globe, and that we were created for that purpose, to serve the higher purpose of helping bacteria survive etc.

So, other than unwarranted assumption built upon unwarranted assumption, with a healthy dose of excluded middle and undoubtedly some question begging along the way, your argument looks great. Just a pity that once you remove the issues you are left with nothing.
 
Sarkus said:
First, you start with the assumption that there is a purpose to the creation of the earth, which is an unwarranted a priori assumption. Any support for this assumption, other than through question-begging or cyclical argument?
Second, even accepting the first (which I don't) you assume that Man is the purpose for the creation, which you only assume presumably because you accept the veracity of scriptures. But again, any support for this assumption, or for the veracity of the scriptures?
Given that Man has only been around for c.200,000 years (since branching off of Homo sapiens) and that dinosaurs were around for some 65 million years, and cockroaches are some 20-30 million years old as an order of insects... it seems somewhat arrogant to assume we are the purpose of the world, even if it was created with a purpose. It fits all other species just as well, if not better, than it suits us. One could in fact just see Homo sapiens as a means of transporting bacteria around the globe, and that we were created for that purpose, to serve the higher purpose of helping bacteria survive etc.

So, other than unwarranted assumption built upon unwarranted assumption, with a healthy dose of excluded middle and undoubtedly some question begging along the way, your argument looks great. Just a pity that once you remove the issues you are left with nothing.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that its unwarranted a priori assumption? If its unwarranted a priori assumption, why then pray can you tell me man has bothers to know anything? Why do we have this thing called "Civilization of humanity" although it might be questionable? Are you of the opinion that our purpose here on earth is eat, sleep, procreate and die? How is this any different from what all other creatures do? Does this mean that Human Intellect means nothing? Are we just differentiated types of "cockroaches?"
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
The bible teaches mostly hate, fear & violence. If ignorance were sin, theists would be the worst sinners. What sin is, tho, is disobeying god(s) so until some god(s) gets up the courage to come out of hiding & show itself, there is no such thing as sin. IF we have symbiotic responsibilities, you betray them by claiming to believe in childish nonsense, claiming as fact things you cannot support & trying to convince others to believe it. I cannot love something which does not exist & neither can you.
Click to expand...

M.R.:
For you to spout such nonsense, I get the distinct impression that you have never actually read the bible.

as/re
I cannot love something which does not exist & neither can you.
Click to expand...
which brings me back to:
It rather depends on one's personal concept of god.
Click to expand...

It seems that those who would dismiss "GOD" (Or the concept "GOD")
Create a fiction a fantasy a construct within their own minds which predisposes them to emotions of negativity and revulsion, then claim that construct to be THE definition of "GOD" and then proceed to dismiss that warped figment of their own peculiar imaginations with grossly misplaced feelings of righteousness.

(advice du jour)
Eschew it.
 
sculptor said:
M.R.:
For you to spout such nonsense, I get the distinct impression that you have never actually read the bible.

as/re

which brings me back to:


It seems that those who would dismiss "GOD" (Or the concept "GOD")
Create a fiction a fantasy a construct within their own minds which predisposes them to emotions of negativity and revulsion, then claim that construct to be THE definition of "GOD" and then proceed to dismiss that warped figment of their own peculiar imaginations with grossly misplaced feelings of righteousness.

(advice du jour)
Eschew it.
Click to expand...

One question: Can you account for Human Intelligence?
 
BIGFOOT said:
Why do you think that its unwarranted a priori assumption? If its unwarranted a priori assumption, why then pray can you tell me man has bothers to know anything? Why do we have this thing called "Civilization of humanity" although it might be questionable? Are you of the opinion that our purpose here on earth is eat, sleep, procreate and die? How is this any different from what all other creatures do? Does this mean that Human Intellect means nothing? Are we just differentiated types of "cockroaches?"
Click to expand...
In a manner of speaking, yes. We are fortunate to have evolved an intellect beyond other animals, and have been able to question our own position in the cosmos. But that does not mean we were destined to be where we are, or that we have an objective purpose, or that we were designed etc. To think such I would consider it mere hubris.

The reason I consider it unwarranted is because both camps (i.e. those believing in Intelligent Design and those who don't) reach the same place (our current position) with their argument... and so taking our current position and making an assumption about the path we took to get here is fallacious/unwarranted.

In other words, if both path X and Y lead to point A, then it is an unwarranted assumption to stand at point A and say you took path X rather than Y.
You need to justify why you think you took path X, and why path Y could not be possible.

Which path you more easily accept we took would be a matter of which you find most rational - but one shouldn't just make assumptions as to the path without the evidence to support it.
 
Sarkus said:
In a manner of speaking, yes. We are fortunate to have evolved an intellect beyond other animals, and have been able to question our own position in the cosmos. But that does not mean we were destined to be where we are, or that we have an objective purpose, or that we were designed etc. To think such I would consider it mere hubris.

The reason I consider it unwarranted is because both camps (i.e. those believing in Intelligent Design and those who don't) reach the same place (our current position) with their argument... and so taking our current position and making an assumption about the path we took to get here is fallacious/unwarranted.

In other words, if both path X and Y lead to point A, then it is an unwarranted assumption to stand at point A and say you took path X rather than Y.
You need to justify why you think you took path X, and why path Y could not be possible.

Which path you more easily accept we took would be a matter of which you find most rational - but one shouldn't just make assumptions as to the path without the evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Its a question of rationalism, and well as a question of existence. When you say, "But that does not mean we were destined to be where we are, or that we have an objective purpose, or that we were designed etc. To think such I would consider it mere hubris. " you are avoiding to take a rational judgement for existence. Thats why you further claim; "and so taking our current position and making an assumption about the path we took to get here is fallacious/unwarranted."

As I said, its a question of why Man is a Rational being, and what is his purpose for existence. When you claim that we have arrived, you are inferring that Rationalism is also existence. For the question of "Why Man?" has not been answered. So, we have not reached our destination. Whether one has taken path X, and another path Y we still are on our way towards understanding........and when one questions another persons route, we are just basing our query on Rationalism and existence. Both are tools, for searching, and both are standards of judgements. Of course, since all we can ever know will be based on a posteriori propositions,its the reason why its difficult to agree on priori possibilities. But that does not mean that we should not question.
 
river said:
Of course

But intelligent design is and all ways will be restricted to the enviroment it is in
Click to expand...

How is it possible for you to acknowledge Intelligence Design in the environment and fail to recognize the same Intelligent Design in you, and yet you are an Intelligent Human Being? Spooky.
 
Although you find this assumption unwarranted, there is no other logical conclusion that can be drawn as to the purpose of the creation of earth, other than it was created with the appearance of Man in mind.
Click to expand...
Which proves, reductio ad absurdum, that the earth was not created for a purpose - or on purpose.

Or as the observer put it:
Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.

Ambrose Bierce
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top