jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (146 posts)

From Non-Life to Life... Fron Non-intelligence to intelligence

  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago

    The naturalist's perspective that life could come from non-life, and intelligent life from non-intelligent life is so simplistic as to defy logic and reason. The nature of life and intelliegnce is so complex for them to be expressed in such a seemingly simple concept called "evolution by natural selection". Life's perplexities, and intelligence's perspicacities cry for a more intersecting  and integratng explanation as "the laws of physics lording it over all of nature", and  therefore  whatever results from that are all naturally derived, so no need for a more sublime etiology. Which leaves a lot of gaps that need to be filled.

    Science have mightily tried to fill those gaps, but the more scientific "explanations"  are proposed, the more it becomes obvious that science comes  very short indeed.

    Therein lies the conundrum.

    1. Titen-Sxull profile image94
      Titen-Sxullposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The assertion here is that life is SO SPECIAL and SO COMPLEX that its a special case that requires the supernatural as an explanation but this is, quite simply, complete and total BS.

      Life is chemistry. If you think chemistry requires magic to work, or is unexplained within a naturalistic world view, than I don't know what to tell you.

      You mention the perplexities of life that BEG for a more elegant explanation. Such as what? Consciousness? I fail to see why consciousness needs an explanation that goes beyond naturalism. It is probably the biggest gap that is exploited by believers in the supernatural and yet when the explanation is found it will assuredly be a natural one, just as every other time we've ever sought the answer to any mystery within nature.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        @Titen:
        A very perceptive hubber (who was not necessarily a theist) proposed the following arguments:  "The genetic code is a set of instructions and information; the set of instructions and information  invokes  intelligence; therefore the genetic code is intelligence."
                                            "All living things are developed via the genetic code; the genetic code is intelligence; therefore all living things are developed by intelligence."

        If you ask me, therein lies the simple and quite elegant explanation.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And BTW, as far as I am aware of there has never been a chemistry lab that has been able to duplicate a "genetic code" of any importance that has led to life.... how much more intelligence.

        2. Titen-Sxull profile image94
          Titen-Sxullposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          DNA is not "intelligence", that's not even a meaningful statement.

          Chemistry is natural, it is governed by natural processes. There is nothing supernatural or artificial about the function of the DNA molecule and DNA does not contain "information" in the sense creationists mean when they say it.

          Our intelligence, btw, its a product of nature. If you want to propose intelligent design of some sort the best thing to do is avoid the addition of the supernatural altogether.

          There are lot's of unknowns out there, no one is going to deny that, but the supernatural is never the best answer, hell, its not even the best place-holder for a real answer.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            @Titen:
            You opened the subject of consciousness in your riposte. Naturalism and Theism have two opposite views of consciousness not only as it relates to the existence of "Free Will", but also, and ultimately to the purpose of human existence.
            Theism and naturalism  are two powerful accounts/interpretations  of the nature of the cosmos. I agree that there is a common ground between the two-- for example, both affirm the existence of a stable physical world with laws of nature-- but they differ profoundly on fundamental matters one of which is  the nature of consciousness.

            On one hand , naturalists tend to hold that there is no more than the physical world. Some of your cohorts even think that the physical world is whatever is disclosed in an ideal physical science, which purposely excludes the existence of conscious persons with free will and moral lives. Others are more introspective and accepting of the idea that there is more to the cosmos than what is disclosed in the physical sciences. This  subset of naturalists hold that conscious persons with free will and moral lives have emerged through non-purposeful, evolutionary processes, where these emergent phenomena are not completely reducible to the physical structures of the cosmos. Most if not all naturalists today insist, however that the cosmos itself is not explainable in terms of purpose or teleology. They maintain that the processes that brought about and sustain the cosmos were and are blind, not being guided by a preconception of some goal or end.

            The above ideas are anathema to theists, because we see the whole cosmos as ultimately explained in terms of a conscious, purposive, divine reality. In theism, God and the cosmos are not on an equal footing in terms of their being; the cosmos exist contingently (not tangentially), and thus neither its coming to exist nor its continued existence from moment to moment is necessary. God's existence is necessary; it is not derived from any law of nature, he is therefore above any laws of nature.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            @Titen:
            I  totally agree with your conclusion that "DNA is not intelligent" but only in so far as the term intelligence applies to humans and other sentient beings.

            There is another, and may I say subtle/succinct,   definition of intelligence,  and this applies to the DNA helix. "Intelligence" involves or invokes the ability to sense the environment and adjust accordingly their morphology, physiology and phenotype". By this definition, the DNA helix is "intelligent"

            1. Titen-Sxull profile image94
              Titen-Sxullposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              DNA only reacts in this way based on natural selection however, in that those better adapted to their environment or a recent change in that environment will survive to pass on their genes, so if you want to claim that it is intelligent you can only do so on a technicality at best.

              It is a remarkable molecule, no doubt, but then the Universe is filled with amazing wonders, many still undiscovered, which is why I choose not to spoil those wonders with fantasies of magic (not saying YOU are suggesting magic, just in general)

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                #titen:
                Technicality or not, the designer of the DNA helix  was supremely confident that given the provocations of the environment, the DNA would purposely react in one way, or another, or another to make sure that whoever owns that DNA will continue to exist.

                This natural selection process, if I may say so has gone full circle. Initially it was the environment that provoked mutational changes in the DNA that may have (or have not) had any beneficial effects on the organism. Now, that this organisms (i.e. humans) have achieved  the fullest expression of their ability to cerebrate, they are now provoking changes in the environment that may or may not have beneficial effects on the environment, and therefore may or may not have beneficial effects on themselves.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Don't be silly - DNA cannot change it's physiology OR its phenotype.  It can only (barring mutations from outside) duplicate itself exactly.  Nor can it sense it's environment any more than a salt crystal can.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Wilderness:
                Analogizing the DNA helix ( the  foundational basis for all the living entities on earth) to a salt crystal is like comparing Leonardo Da Vinci to the  corner "artist/painter" in your local market. As molecular enttiies go the DNA is the most reactive/interactive of all; as chemical entities go, the salt crystals is one of the most inert ....unless of course if you are using it to season your food.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  @wilderness:
                  As you know evolution via natural selection would never exist without tjhe DNA undergoing mutational changes... and what are mutational changes but changes in the DNA's phenotype, physiology and morphology.

        3. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          A hydrogen molecule contains the same kind of "instructions" to make water as DNA does to make a cell (in the presence of oxygen it combines to make water).  Does that mean that there had to be a god to make those instructions, too?

          That you cannot understand how it could happen does mean it is illogical; it means you can't understand it.

          And yes, chem labs have reconstructed destroyed DNA and produced a living organism from it, all from off the shelf chemicals.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Wilderness:
            Hydrogen atoms (2 of them in fact)  have this  peculiar propensity to bind with a single oxygen to make water. Nothing intelligent in that scenario,  just pure chemical reaction..... which could not be said of  the base amino acids that makes  DNA and its partner in "crime", so to speak,  tRNA, the crime being the production of copies of DNA that allows for the unlimited  production of cellular structures (carbohydrates/proteins/ triglycerides and various enzymatic molecules that increase or decrease cellular metabolism, as the need arises)  that makes our organ systems.
            "Chem labs have reconstructed destroyed DNA and produced a living organism from it" is obviously within the realm of possibility, the operative word being the presence of DNA. Without DNA, no matter how much these chemistry labs try to create living organisms by mixing atoms in varying combinations, CAN and WILL  NEVER succeed in creating DNA that then leads to "living organisms".

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              So the chemistry of hydrogen is different than the chemistry of a DNA strand composed of different atoms. 

              Can you explain how the chemistry involved is different?  Certainly, what you are calling "information" is nothing of the sort, just chemical properties that we can watch perform for us. 

              "Without DNA, no matter how much these chemistry labs try to create living organisms by mixing atoms in varying combinations, CAN and WILL  NEVER succeed in creating DNA that then leads to "living organisms"

              Quite a statement, and certainly not one I would EVER deign to make.  My fortune ball is broken most of the time.

              But can you provide proof of that statement beyond your personal, built in crystal ball?  What evidence are you using to predict what man can or cannot do in 1,000 years?  Considering that we have already taken a partial strand and rebuilt to it full size whereupon it energized a cell and was alive:  man built DNA, from scratch and shelf chemicals, attaching it to more DNA to make a complete string while you claim it will never be done.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                @wilderness:
                When it suits your argumentative purpose you are more than willing to devalue and degrade Homo Sapiens in the other forums that we've had debates on similar subject matter, but now that you need to bolster your  contention,  you are saying that human's are a supreme specie  capable of so many wonderful and wondrous things, including  synthesizing the DNA code in chemistry labs  to produce living organisms.
                The problem with you is as I have said before... you are neither here or there.
                To make my point crystal clear... humans are capable of doing almost anything...  but synthesizing DNA in the lab to produce living organisms by  chemically conglomerating atoms, IS DEFINITELY not one of them.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah, very very impressive to make a polio virus from artificial genetic material.

                    I think this proves something significant.  It shows that intelligence with a will can create something, even something that is alive.   

                    Imagine whatever it was that started not a virus, but the origins that resulted in this universe outside of time as we know it, with no lab nor "ingredients" of any kind, natural or synthetic. 

                    People suppose that something non intelligent without a will of any kind could accomplish it, but look how difficult it was to get to this point with very intelligent people with all that the best labs on the planet could provide.   Let us hope all people everywhere will look for a sufficient cause and effect in all things, especially the biggest things that concern us the most.

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    @wilderness:
                    The article you referenced to was published in 1981. As far as I know, the possible applicability of that research has never been moved forward towards understanding>curing>eradicating polio. 

                    I was reading in bewteen the lines of that article, and I  got the impression that  the way they "chemically produced" a synthetic polio virus, was also based on mixing chemicals with a  strand of a pre-existing  polio DNA.

                    Now if you tell me that  they produced that strand of polio DNA fron scratch and developed it into a fully activated and interactive, thus disease producing, polio virus... then I would call that achievment "god-like".

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image59
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps, if a "Chem lab" were making very tiny changes to DNA over millions of years, they might produce living organisms. It's an easy thing to miss; time.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                @Encephalo:
                Certainly not a man made chemistry  lab

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, a man made chemistry lab. That is not a problem.

                  Synthetic DNA has just been created by scientists. It looks like your god of the gaps isn't the only one who can do it

                  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … e-science/

                  1. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    It's comments like this that have me stumped.

                    First, there is no need for God, in the arising of complex chemical compounds, IE, DNA, and out of the same mouth we get this, "He's not the only one" that can do it. That statement asserts that God has done it, (which is denied), when man is ascribed the same accomplishment.

                    That in itself confirms that it took (human) intelligence, and not a little time, equipment and research, to do the same. So, man re-created, (copied) that which already is. He, (they) in effect, did nothing new, though, remarkable it is.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Science can only answer these questions to a point, but then we are left without a sufficient answer for our origins.  It makes complete sense to me that something that could be a sufficient cause would be responsible for the effect (Our universe) that we see.  Possibly ruling out things in advance, no matter how ludicrous could be a matter of putting on blinders and setting the game to allow for a more favorable view to "win" over another. 

      When I see people discuss the particulars in these discussions, it comes down to that usually.  They often end up avoiding the elephant in the room, to the point that science itself often has to take a back seat.  I am not making this up, it is repeatable and can be tested, lol.  It comes out in the particulars, that I have seen.

      If ANY views have to rely on sheer blind faith in something without good reason, why are those things given credence more than the things they don't want to be true at times?  This is a very fair question I think!  Then people are really just picking over what they WANT to have faith in or not, and that isn't going where the science leads.  Whatever is responsible for our intelligence and life, has to be capable of it,  would think.  That seems scientific to me!

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You're absolutely right that science does not have all the answers.  The problem is that nothing else does either; making one up without any observable evidence does NOT provide any answer worth anything.  "Possible" does not mean "probable" and certainly does not mean "certain".

        Also right in that anything responsible for our universe WILL be sufficient cause.  But again, "sufficient" does not mean "probable" and certainly not "certain".  There may be a million "sufficient" causes, but which one is the one that actually happened?



        I would go on and add ignorance to that sheer blind faith.  Because we don't know is not a reason to make up a cause that we can then believe with sheer blind faith. 

        But what evidence/experimentation/tests/observation (science, in other words) makes you say that any cause of intelligence will be intelligent?

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image59
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Science may find those answers, given time.

        We believed the sun revolved around the earth. We now have an answer.
        We believed the earth was flat. We now have an answer.
        We believed gods created us. We now have an answer.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, all that is well and good, but it still looks like an eternal uncaused cause is the most likely explanation, and of things that have been revealed to humanity, it looks like the best explanation is STILL a god.

          As long as you don't have any problem with others having faith either.  There is much faith, where there is much faith, no matter what you call it.  Putting hope and faith in something that can't even "weigh in" on the topic is just that.  I can be fair and hope we all can be.

    3. EncephaloiDead profile image59
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Anyone who had a clear understanding of evolution should easily be able to explain those "gaps", thus refuting evolution.

      I see no explanations at all, but instead, only unfounded assertions.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        @Encephalo:
        Without assertions, there can be no arguments.. and that is what these forums are for...argumenting and debating.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But, your assertions are unfounded, there is no debate.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            @encephalo:
            The above post is the ultimate expression of close-mindedness that is so prevalent in the atheistic world.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Close-mindedness? Most atheists I know are open to the idea of a God, we are just waiting for evidence. Most believers I know are not open to the idea that no God exists even though they have no evidence.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image59
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You claim a creator, but can provide no evidence or proof of such an entity. What we know and are learning about life can be explained by evolution.

              Where is the debate?

    4. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So according to you science comes short on explaining life and intelligence. I think science does a perfect job at explaining how humans are here and I don't think the why we are here is at all an intelligent question. Do you have a better answer that doesn't beg many more questions that can be studied and verified?

  2. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago

    And I'm going to presume you believe your hypothesis of "invisible sky wizard did it" is somehow more credible?

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      @Zelkiiro:
      Before scientific perseveration became entrenched as the only way humans  see/interpret  themselves vis-à-vis the universe, philosophy gave them exceedingly appropriate conceptualization of human existence, thus straight line dissections  of  humanity's role in creation and the meaning and purpose of that role.

      Thus to discard philosophy from all considerations, now that science seems to be providing "answers"  is the height of folly. I submit that without philosophers musing about man and the universe, science would not be at the place that it now holds.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        All religion is philosophy, but not all philosophy is religion.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          @Zelkiiro:
          To the extent that philosophy may  tangentially entertwine with religion (specifically with tenets that involves belief in the existence  of a spiritual/transcendental  existence)  your statement holds a grain of truth. 

          Our ancient predeccesors  whose scientific moorings were neither null nor void as atheists would lead  us to believe, have certainly thought about what was divinely sublime about the natural world. And in so doing  keenly perceived that all natutal events have etiologies that are not  susceptible  to purely the physicalist and or materialist interpretation.

          If we are to believe

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        An appropriate conceptualization would be one that is correct, not the dreams of a theist wanting a god out there somewhere.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Conceptualizing and dreaming are "events" both of which involve neuronal firing. Events are caused. We, having  free will,  initiated the conceptualizing and dreaming, that then caused the neurons to fire, that then led my fingers to touch the keyboard on my computer to start writing these posts on Hub Pages forum to express my concepts and "dreams" that there is a God because  I have a conscientious consciousness that brought forth that free will to start conceptualizing and dreaming.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, you've got it a little backwards here. We don't think so as to activate electricity in our brains. Electricity activates our brain. We know this because without electricity we see and here and do nothing.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      No fair, no one said that! Assumptions!

  3. Jomine Jose profile image81
    Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago

    So simple life and simple intelligence needed a creator but a complex life form and greater intelligence arose from nothing,  or where did you say that arose from?

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      @Jomine:
      There is nothing simple about life and its emergence, and the intelligence that went with it amongst the sentient species. Even at the most basic level of an amoeba, life as expressed in energy intake and uptake (cellular metabolism) may be more complex as the machinery that runs your car

      Adaptation as proposed by evolutionary natural selection occurs mostly via mutation, which at the moleculo-cellular level involves complexities... complexities that have transformative power, beyond that which could be ascribed to simple adaptive needs alone.

      1. Jomine Jose profile image81
        Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The most simple level is prions and viruses not amoeba and prion is just a protein molecule that can replicate.
        The creator, I think you agree, is a living being more complex and more intelligent than any other life form here on earth. Your contention is simple life forms need  creator but complex life need not?

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I never contented that "simple life forms need a creator, but complex life need not". I am suggesting that you misread my OP.  Be that as it may I am of the same opinion as you... and that the cosmos and all the sentient and non sentient entities that now inhabit it, was created for a purpose... purpose being a characteristics of intelligence.  Unless of course if I am misreading your post too.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Can you describe that purpose (with evidence you are correct) or is there a purpose because an intelligence created us, supported by the knowledge that there was a purpose which indicates an intelligence?

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              @wilderness:
              If in the process of denying the existence of God, you are more than willing to argue that human existence is purposeless... then I suppose your contention that human's , in maybe another thousand years, could and would develop the temerity and perspicacity to create DNA from simply mixing atoms ( and I mean no pre-existing  portions of DNA to "reconstruct) in a laboratory setting is pure hogwash.... "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

              1. Jomine Jose profile image81
                Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The only purpose of human or any other animal existence is procreation. For every individual meaning or purpose is a self construct.
                PS: What according to you is the purpose of humans?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  @Jomine:
                  Your rather blunt statement that "the only purpose of human or any other animal existence is procreation"... made me cringe.... no, it made my blood boil, to be similarly blunt.

                  Human's are NOT any other animals...I think the fact that you are now clearly enjoying the benefits of  humanity's most  creative achievment, i.e civilization, belies your statement that man is just another animal whose sole purpose is procreation.
                  As I see it, humans  evolved with the most complex organ system on earth  i.e. the human brain, not to procreate but to discover  what are the intended  meaning and purpose of their existence, and in the process re-create witnesses to God's creation.

                  1. Jomine Jose profile image81
                    Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The Europeans exterminated many Native Americans and Australians. Don't your blood boil on hearing that?  If so do you avoid hearing/saying that?
                    I can be politically correct and say children are the meaning but that is saying it just in a round about way.
                    Human brain evolved not only to help procreation but also to help eat and avoid being eaten and get resources that one can procreate. Your god is just the agent detection mode in overdrive, a side product of evolution.

                    What, according to you, is the purpose of life?

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    A lion is NOT any other animal.  A gorilla is NOT any other animal.  A giraffe is NOT any other animal.

                    No animal is a different animal.  Every one has strengths and weaknesses, just as humans do.  Our single real strength does not make us superior in any but that one attribute, whether you think the universe was made for us or not.

                    Sorry, the random forces of mutation did not evolve us to discover meaning and purpose in our existence, and it CERTAINLY did not evolve us to witness the imagined creation of the universe by an imagined god. 

                    You continue to imagine that humanity is special, but it is all based on the idea that god created us to be His servants/children/companion or whatever.  Prove the existence of your imagined god, Prove the attributes you assign to it and prove your idea of what He wants of us, and you will have gone a long ways to proving your concept of a special species on a special earth in a special galaxy.  Otherwise it is just so much BS.

                  3. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    And yet, humans have been living as hunter-gathers (exactly like other animals) far longer than civilizations have been around. If your god had anything to do with creating civilization, he would have done so long ago. Another failure on His part?



                    Lots of other animals have just as complex an organ system as humans, some even more so. You are making false conclusions from false premises.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Does all that mean you cannot describe the purpose?  That "the cosmos and all the sentient and non sentient entities that now inhabit it, was created for a purpose" is just pure hogwash without any truth in it?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  @Wilderness: I have told you in various forums on HubPages what the purpose(s)  is (are)  of human existence. So if you can not recall what I have stated in those forums...then better have your memory bank checked for holes in it. Creating DNA (from scratch and not based on pre-existing DNA)  to produce "synthetic life" is definitely not one of them

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Guess I'll have to have the bank checked, because you have never shown what the purpose is.  You may have made a claim on what you THINK it MIGHT be (I don't recall), but never any proof of what it actually is.  There is, you know, a difference between a guess or simple opinion and actual knowledge...

                    That you don't think the purpose was to make DNA means...what?

            2. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              @wilderness:
              Someone proposed the following arguments:
                Humans are sentient; Sentience invokes consciousness and free will;   
                Therefore, humans have consciousness and free will.
                 Consciousness and free will invokes creation; Creation invokes 
                 meaning and purpose; Therefore consciousness and free will proves God
                 exist.

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image59
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                lol Hilarious.

                You need to educate yourself in fallacies, your post is nothing but:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                GIGO.  Garbage in, Garbage out.

                There is no indication, outside of a single species, that sentience invokes consciousness and free will, and then the connection cannot be verified as causal.

                But far worse is the statement that consciousness and free will invokes creation, meaning and purpose, ending with a god.  None of which has any evidence to support it at all.  Consciousness and free will does NOT indicate a creator (although creation of the "thinker" is obvious) and it does NOT indicate meaning OR purpose.  Certainly there is no god at the end of the chain, unless the false to fact premises are taken as truth.

                PS  And no, creation does not indicate a sentient creator (any  more than an ant hill does) and in fact does not indicate a creator.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  @wilderness:
                  Most  atheists as I understand it, DO NOT believe in the existence of "Free Will". However, there is a general and fairly universal  consensus that human beings believe that they make undetermined choices for purposes and that the basis for believing this is that they are simply directly aware  (consciousness)  or have the experience of making such choices. So if one believes that one makes undetermined  choices for purposes, then one is less inclined to be skeptical of the view that nonhuman, good, intentional agent (God) chooses to create the cosmos for a purpose.

                  So why do atheists and naturalists  deny or doubt that we have free will? They argue that while it might be true that we fail to be aware of any causes or other determining conditions of our choices, we can not be aware of the lack of causes or other determining conditions. Naturalists  argue that it is reasonable to think we cannot be aware of the lack of the lack of causes or other determining conditions of our choices because science (physics, chemistry, biology etc.) requires that  we believe in the existence of causes or other determining conditions for anything that occurs in this world. Naturalists further argue that it is because science supposedly makes this regulative assumption that it has been able to make such remarkable explanatory progress in curing diseases, developing technology to enhance communications and the exploration of space etc. This argument against free will from science is what is known as the argument from causal closure, or the causal closedness of the physical world

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    What are you defining "undetermined choices" as?  A choice not made?  Or free will?

                    But either way, jumping from whatever it means to the existence of a god is really a stretch; the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  Only AFTER the god is accepted as real can one imagine how or why it makes choices.

                    Some atheists and naturalists do deny free will for the very reasons you list.  Why don't theists?  Because their holy scriptures indicates differently so they will refuse what science discovers?  Whether I believe in free will or not, I can see the point there and accept it as at least partially true; why can't a believer?

          2. Jomine Jose profile image81
            Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            But that is what you propose when you say life and intelligence needs a creator.
            Either you are saying that the creator (more complex life and intelligence) arose from non intelligent non life form or you are saying that it arose from a more complex intelligent life form. Then you scuttle your own argument.
            You are supposing a creator who is a sentient being(with intelligence, otherwise he can't create). Your argument is sentient beings need a creator,  so logically, your creator also needs a creator which again need another. ... so contradictory.
            Purpose is a human construct.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              @Jonine:
              "Purpose is a human construct".. is TRUE only if  humans are the only intelligent/sentient entities on earth or  for that matter on any other similarly situated planetray systems anywhere else in our universe, or any other universes.

    2. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "So simple life and simple intelligence needed a creator..." LMAO. Simple living organism can be, and has been, produced in the lab. No imaginary Bronze Age sky daddy needed. The rest is the result of that evil "E" word that creationist can't comprehend...what is it?...EVOLUTION.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        @Paul Wingert: "Simple living organisms can be, and has been, produced in the lab" hhmmm . The question begs to be asked... "from what"? If you say.. from simple conglomerationsof atoms and molecules... Man,  whoever did that should be called GOD himself"

        1. Paul Wingert profile image78
          Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          His name is Craig Venter, not god. After years of research, calling him or his team "god" would probably be insulting.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            @Paul:
            Dr. Venter and his team constructed a semi-synthetic organism based upon a pre-existing genome of a bacterium that apparently cause mastitis in goats. Now if you tell me that his team was able to synthesize DNA from scratch ( by mixing chemicals in the lab)  and not constructing it on the platform of a  pre-existing genome... then that would indeed be "God-like" .

            Sorry to burst your bubble, but his accomplishment, although notable among research circles, is not quite as earth-shattering as you would like us to believe.

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Whatever it IS, has that same dilemna, is the problem.  The cause that would fit the effect has to be a certain kind of thing, no matter what any of us wants or desires.  That is the nature of necessity in this case, not anyone's opinion.  Hard, cold facts determine this, not beliefs. We can know of the of the things the cause would HAVE to be based on the effect we are in.  We can equally know of some things that it couldn't be. 

      Whatever views held by any of us, either DO fit or don't fit better with the cause and effect of our universe and world.  If a view doesn't work in actuality then it likely isn't a good or best view to hold for explanation.  (If truth is the goal about our origins.  I am assuming that is the case for all involved in these kinds of discussions.)

      1. Jomine Jose profile image81
        Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Then why do you presuppose an "it" there,  that is contradictory?

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What is contradictory?    I am not following.

          1. Jomine Jose profile image81
            Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What were you calling as a dilemma?
            You were proposing a creator,  that propostion is  a contradiction and is causing you the dilemma.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No, a creator would actually "fit" the specifics of whatEVER is the cause for our universe.  Its not just a problem for the creator, but whatever is the cause if not a creator.  Certain things have to "be" the case, not just for a god, but for whatever it is.  Existing out of time as we know it is one of the things, for example.  Whatever it is, is not subject to the things we are subject to.

              1. Jomine Jose profile image81
                Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                First, your logic doesn't say anything about time.
                Second time is a concept so nothing can be 'out of time".
                Your premise is everything needs a creator(that is what you suppose when you propose "a cause").
                God, if is a thing needs a creator by your premise
                And if no'thing' then doesn't exist.
                Lastly there is no 'a cause', a cause is contingent on a preexisting thing that 'cause'.
                So there is no 'cause' for the universe,  universe is "uncaused", eternal. You can't propose a creator and arbitrarily fix it at that. Either there are no turtles or there are turtles all the way down. One cannot simply say there is a turtle or two or three turtle.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I think that everything that begins to exist has a cause.  You have to be careful to say what my or anyone's premise is because in your case there, you said I believe something I actually don't and then ent on to discuss that. 

                  Do it's not my premise that everything needs a creator.  See my first sentence in this post please.  That is my view.

                  What do you mean by, "Lastly there is no 'a cause', a cause is contingent on a preexisting thing that 'cause'."

                  On what basis do you say the universe is eternal?   Do you really believe that?

                  I would never arbitrarily propose a creator.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Although "Lastly there no 'a cause'"  might be a little strong in the case of the universe, the best brains in the world tell us there is no NEED for a cause.  Simply put, there may have been a cause, there may not.  Which makes sense; in the world of quantum mechanics things come into existence, and disappear, without a cause all the time.

                    At one time it was thought the universe was cyclical and would collapse back into a singularity, followed by another big bang.  As we now know the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate that concept has been discredited and there is no reason to think the universe will ever disappear.  Eternal, in other words.

                    If you don't "arbitrarily" propose a creator, what criteria do you use to do so?  What evidence or reasoning (outside of "I don't know") are you using?

                  2. Jomine Jose profile image81
                    Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this


                    Which are the things that "begin" to exist?  Do I get to decide which are those things or only you?

                    Beginning of the universe,  isn't it what we are discussing.  On what basis you say that universe began to exist let alone has a cause?
                    Beginning is based on the "human concept" of time.

                    Cause is verb, cause is contingent on a mediator acting on a target to "cause" another object.  To take the example of bible, god (mediator) do causal action on mud (target) to create human. When you use "a/the" cause you are reifying.

                    Universe is made of matter separated by space. Space is our conceptualisation of nothingness,  cannot be created.  Matter, even if it was creation ex nihilo,  needs to exist in the form of god. So it means matter and space are eternal aka universe eternal. And god I suppose has intelligence,  so if all intelligence that began to exist needs a cause......

  4. Troy Davidson32 profile image61
    Troy Davidson32posted 2 years ago

    This is so profound...love it! Science leads us to "The Parity Violation" and leaves the rest within the Quantum Realm....great idealism...

 
working