There I said it.....for if there is anything at all in the universe that could indirectly prove God's existence, the DNA is it.
The Higgs-Boson particle may just be what scientist says it is, the basic unit of all that is material in the universe, but the DNA molecule in its sublime complexity clearly points to design... that shouts INTELLIGENCE!!!!!
Recent scientific discoveries have convinced Sir Anthony Flew, the late world-famous philosopher and leading atheist, that the DNA with the "unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to create life, that intelligence MUST have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together". Thus I now believe, that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifests what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine source."
He further said: "why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more that a half-century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature."
Are you really trying to disprove
? It is theist like you give theist's a bad name. Intelligent design written in a convoluted form doesn't make it any more than creation "science".
Why do you try to prove anyways? To whom?
Creation and Intelligent Design are not oxymorons, Creation implies intelligence and only intelligence can create designs. Now if you are implying that God is not intelligent and thus can never be in anyway mentioned in the same line as Intelligent design... then I suppose, we can play with semantics all day long.
They are not oxymorons but synonyms.
My question is again
"Why do you try to prove anyways? To whom?"
Whatever you say, yours is creation theory and athesists can easily see through that. Those who believe in creationism doesn't need this silly proof either, underlined by an argument from authority.
"only intelligence can create designs"
I hope for God's sake that he was not out there all night creating one of these
A man's thoughts can change the looks of a snow flake
Interesting that you should post a picture of snowflakes. If you must know, the formation of snowflakes has nothing to do with intelligent design, thus God has no direct hand in its appearance. His sole role in that process was creating nature and the laws that govern it so it does not go into persistent entropy. The snowflake, in all its beauty is pure simple pattern, not design.
The snowflake's ubiquitous six-fold symmetry is solely the direct consequence of the properties and shape of water molecule. Their immense variety of patterns(not designs) is molded (not created) by its distinctive history and micro-environment; how each snowflake develops is sensitive to the specific temperature and humidity changes during its growth.
If a human has a positive thought from experiment done on snowflake. it's appearance turns to look more beautiful. Or if human thoughts are negative it turns ugly.
The snowflake, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder
Thank you for sharing this information, Alexander. The secular religion of Darwinism, which takes more faith to believe then creation by design by intelligence, is fading. Its wonderful that Sir Anthony Flew's eyes were opened to accept the truth and that he spoke out about what he could not deny. R.I.P.
The integrated complexity of the physical world is a good reason to believe there is an intelligence behind it, and that was good enough for Einstein. Then, this argument applies with the a fortiori integrated complexity for the living world. Which Flew accepted, because who was he to judge Einstein. Einstein wasn't inclined to talk about it, but his humble un-authoritarian manor speaks volumes.
Let God be God, and every man a liar.
Acceptance is a key!
DNA is also the thing which confirms scientifically that all life is genetically related, as in "blood-related". We share common ancestry with every living thing on this planet, that's what DNA tests have repeatedly shown us.
In the meantime we've found no evidence of tampering with the genetic information we see from any "intelligent" source, unless you count human beings driving their own evolution by using tech to adapt to new environments instead of waiting around for natural selection to painstakingly build-in defenses the natural way.
All the evidence I've seen suggests that evolution is a process that doesn't need a supernatural agency and works from the bottom-up. We've certainly never seen any evidence to the contrary, what we have are people who see complexity in the world and in their baffled awe insert an unnecessary unproven and ill defined supernatural agent for which we have no real cause to believe.
So Anthony Flew believed " . . . that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence". Good for him. You believe that too. Good for you. I don't believe that. So now what? As people who may have to live in the same society, same neighbourhood, same street, what do we do now?
Shall argue about it? Fight about it? Should you try to get politicians to make laws that force me to live according to your beliefs, despite my right not to hold those beliefs? Should I try to ridicule your beliefs at every opportunity, despite your right to believe? Or should we just disagree, and be ok with the fact that we disagree? And be glad to live in a society where we are free to disagree? Come on, where do we go from here?
We go to a place where finally everything that we disagree with would be settled with finality....heaven. Now if you don't believe in the existence of heaven....I can't do anything about that.
That's only meaningful to someone who shares your beliefs. I, and many others, don't. Either way, what people believe happens when we're gone doesn't change the fact that we're here now, and we have to share the same streets, same same towns, same cities, same workspaces, same society. So how do we do that? By trying to force others to live according to our own personal beliefs? Is that the course of action most likely to enable people with different beliefs to live peacefully in the same society? Or is that the course of action most likely to bring about conflict, both cultural and physical?
DNA is a great way to catch a murderer. Why not a good ID status to measure intelligence.
Although I do understand the point of view of the atheist I'm afraid I'm inclined to accept what I see as the obvious fact that the elegance of design in our universe cannot be by chance and must have some intelligence at its core. God, as I understand it, is the only logical explanation.
God is just a word, it is not an explanation with clear evidence of many levels, patterns and forms of intelligence.There are many God ideas and concepts yet where is the pattern other than what is coded in nature already.
Sorry atheists , Until some one of you brain surgeons can explain to this cat , the immeasurable amount of heavenly created beauty in just the natural world , I'm going with God ! I'm very Sorry though , I am actually very sorry for the miserable questioning lack of simple Faith and insight that are all that is left of atheism . Truly I am !
Each person is untitled to our own elution. From doing fantasy and historical art. And do have plenty of elutions of my own.
It's just I don't have long serious conversations with my elutions. Or they will lock me up in a rubber room.
In analytical and organic chemistry, elution is the process of extracting one material from another by washing with a solvent; as in washing of loaded ion-exchange resins to remove captured ions. In a liquid chromatography experiment, for example, an analyte is generally adsorbed, or "bound to", an adsorbent in a liquid chromatography column.
elution elute |iˈlo͞ot| verb Chemistry
remove (an adsorbed substance) by washing with a solvent, esp. in chromatography.
elution |iˈlo͞oSHən | noun
I guess you meant illusions, which God is not ...
"It is too complex for me to understand so there MUST be a god".
"There are natural laws and I don't understand where they came from so there MUST be a god."
"Life exists and I don't know how it came to be so there MUST be a god."
"The universe exists and I don't know how it happened to be so there MUST be a god."
Self proclaimed ignorance, whether individual, cultural or species wide, has become a popular method of showing a god's existence. While it used to be interesting to hear such statements (does the speaker really not understand the fallacy of such a statement?), it has been repeated so many times it is merely boring now. Isn't there something beyond "I don't know, so that proves goddunnit"? Is that the best we as a species can do? If we can't satisfy our curiosity with fact we'll just make up answers and accept them as true?
If you must quote anyone in this discussion, it should be Flew, who I referenced in my OP... not the quotes that you just mentioned above, which I thought you dredged from your very unreliable trash can.
Umm...The first I thought was the OP, the next three I thought were from Flew. Reported in the OP, but as being from Flew.
Was I mistaken? Did he not say "Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws." (translation: I don't know where laws came from and therefore they indicate a god.)
In this discussion .....if you must quote someone, it should be Sir Anthony Flew. The above quotes you just wrote in your post, must have come from a very unreliable and obstinate trash can in a dark corner of your room where all such similar obfuscations percolate in abudance.
So tell us...what sort of facts are you exactly looking for to finally assuage your fear that God exist?
Oh, I think I've posted that enough times (although the sensationalist claim of fearing it is ridiculous). Find the god. Show it. Talk to it.
But no one does, do they? They don't even try. Instead they cleverly define that god (that MUST exist because the species is ignorant) in such a way that it cannot be done. I'm sorry, but that isn't how we learn things - we can all make up stories, from fairies to gnomes to unicorns, but that doesn't give them reality any more than making up a god as an explanation for the unknown gives it validity.
Remind me again,what facts you have posted that indicated, that those are the ones that will absolutely clear your doubts or erase your denial of the existence of God.
Find the god. Show it. Talk to it.
I do think I've said that before. It also seems quite obvious that such things would do the trick.
Those are not facts...those are wishful thinking.
Then I'm not understanding your question. It is a fact that if a god appeared and spoke to me, showing godlike abilities, then it becomes a matter of fact, not belief, and belief is automatic. It is true that it would also have to present convincing evidence it created this universe before that would be believed, but that isn't necessary to be a god. By MY definition, anyway - if yours is different then such evidence would have to be shown as well.
If not for anything else...would God care to show Himself to someone who doesn't even believe that He exist.?
Do you think if you believe hard enough, some hollygram would appear of God for proof.
Does He want converts or would He prefer to send to Hell for not being able to believe?
In any case what does that have to do with showing a god? Or is that a part of how it is defined - unwilling to prove its existence to someone that doesn't believe?
Since God and Santa is based on fear. If he did show me proof of either. i would die of shook (heart attack). Then end up in Hell, just because I didn't"nt think it was plasuable
He's got plenty of believers... to add you, whose only explanation for life and existence is all that could be inferred by his 5 senses, to that list would not be a miracle but an act futility. And God only does miracles, not acts of futility.
If Christain can not crawl or evolutionary themselves out of the Flintstones era.
How are they going to slingshot themselves pass modern era and then drive pass the 99% unknown earth. And by their wildest imagination sling shot themselves pass finding out who the creator of Universe is. If your not killed by 1000s of other jealous Gods who desire over obedience slavery too.
I'd be interested in hearing you explain how we got where we are today without the contributions of professed Christians. And Muslims. It's fun to believe Christians can't crawl out of 'the Flintstone's era' but proving it is something else, entirely.
Many Christians believe we coexistence with Dinosaurs, when dragons are explained more clearly.
The. People where held back from learning the world was not flat for 1500 years.
Finally science and evolution studies were allowed to expand. We more than double life expectancy. Gave rapidly new opportunity for work and play. People traveled the planet to open their mind vastly.
Today all to be imprisonment by nonsense laws and religious wars.
I would have to say that individual Christians have often overcome their religious "training" to make great discoveries and inventions.
The church, on the other hand, has done very little but delay and prohibit learning in favor of swallowing tall tales from the priesthood.
Wouldn't brush them all with one stroke. Just they did slow down great diversity for so long.
Not many on flat earth any more. Check on Creationism museum. Some atheist tried to sue because young creationist tried running it through the school systems across America
I would submit that Christians participated in all of the progress just as much as non Christians. To say otherwise ignores fact.
To say that some believe we coexisted with dinosaurs makes it sound as if Christians, alone, have crazy theories. I know of a sect in California who committed suicide, had nickels somewhere on their bodies, because some comet was coming and they thought it was bringing something of value (I don't remember the details) but they had to commit suicide prior to its arrival. Don't even get me started with the bizarre beliefs of scientologists.
It doesn't take 'religion' in the classic sense to make people stupid. Sometimes, they just are.
I see. God does not want me. That's OK as I do not want a god that picks and chooses among it's creations, choosing only a handful of the lives it made and burning the rest for eternity. My morals are stronger than that, but then all gods seem to have a strong lack of moral structure, don't they?
No wonder the world is ruled by fear.
"Blessed is he who have not seen me, but still believed." ....Jesus of Nazareth. So you see, believing could lead you to a state of bliss or blessed-ness.
Now the feeling of contentment that one gets from the operative functioning of your 5 senses is not bliss-full , but only fancy-full.
Yes, I understand that the man stated that we should not use the brain and reasoning ability that his father gave us. I just disagree with the statement - if Jesus is God then such a statement can only come from the men reporting his words, not from the god, for it is foolish in the extreme. Particularly as some of His creations are unable to simply believe any wild tale they are told.
Of course He wants you... but the question is... Do you want Him. He could not force you to like him, any more than you could force Him to like you.
Jesus is OK, yet I perfer the Wizard of Oz.
IGNORE THAT MAN BEHIND THOSE curtains!!!!
Yes, you could force Him to like you! But He already does, so its not necessary.
"to add you, whose only explanation for life and existence is all that could be inferred by his 5 senses, to that list would not be a miracle but an act futility. And God only does miracles, not acts of futility."
"Of course He wants you"
As your two statements are the antithesis of each other, would you care to choose which one is true and correct and which one is not?
The first statement was an expression of my view not God's.
The second statement, If I understand Christian beliefs and values, all emanates from God.... for how could He not want you when He was the one who created you.
You've lost me. You think God doesn't want me because I cannot simple believe without evidence, but then go on to say God wants me. I understand it is only your personal evaluation of what God wants or does not and may not be true at all, but the two points are still opposites of each other.
As far as wanting simply because he created me, well, I create much every day that I don't want and throw away.
And therein lies the difference between you and God... you creating something and when you decide it's no longer of any value, you discard it instantly. God in his infinite patience do not discard any of his creation, even if what He created has become petulant, to the point of arrogance.
Umm...you are speaking of the Christian god that discarded an entire planet of sentient beings He created because they didn't follow His orders well enough? Or are you making up an entirely new god, with new attributes and history?
I suppose you are referring to the Old Testament when you said the rather perplexing statement about a God discarding a planet full of humans that He ostensibly created. The way I see it, the Old Testament is basically the historical (some literal, but mostly metaphorical) tradition of the Jewish people, based on their interpretation that they are the "Chosen People". As such the stories narrated in the Bible should be viewed from that perspective alone.
The human mind thinks and operates and produces language that are embodied metaphors. Thus , embodied metaphors are the building blocks of perception, cognition and action. The history of Homo Sapiens is littered with perceptions, cognitions and actions whose basic undergirding are metaphorical interpretation of reality and existence, and their inter-related experiences in that reality and existence.
That would be a start, but even then I'd be skeptical. A sufficiently advanced civilization could easily fool us. I'm certain even with our current technology we could fool our ancestors of even a few centuries ago into thinking that we are gods.
Whereupon you come to the definition of "god". We are gods to the ancient peoples, even if we didn't create the universe and don't know everything there is to know. We can fly, we create fire at the flick of a thumb, we even bring the "dead" back to life.
So what is a "god"?
I suppose that could fit into the definition of a god. I was thinking more of the omniscient, omnipotent definition.
A God who is not in the supernatural realm is quite simply a demi-god, or a pretend god.
A verifiably true God is someone who resides not in the natural realm and whose omniscient attributes include the consequential knowledge of every thing that humans could/would hope for and do accordingly, and perhaps justifiably.
Gotta love that "verifiable" part as you list things we don't know, can't find and could never, ever verify. With that kind of definition you shouldn't wonder why more people don't believe.
How convenient and magical it is to be a Christain.
Still won't guit my real job of building sandcastle.
The reason why some (or more people, as per your calculation) do not believe in God's existence has nothing to do with non-verification, but with non-realization that their use of embodied cognition is so limited as to be non-existent.
Gotcha. A better use for cognition than to search and find truth is to make up stories that cannot be verified. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Well, what better way to eliminate competition than design an undetectable god and then declare that "If you can't prove it doesn't exist then it must be there!"? And as a bonus you get to say that non-believers in this hidden universe and entity have no cognition!
You might want to research what embodied metaphor/embodied cognition are before you post another nonsensical statement, like the one you posted above. I didn't realize that Castlepaloma could be so contaminating and contagious. LOL . But as the garden variety metaphor would say: "Birds of the same feather flock together" I think my version of it is more succinct ie Birds of the same together fly away with feathers. And there you and Castlepaloma go...flying into the sunset of unmitigated nonsense.
I stand by my post. Anyone that makes up fantasy characters and places, then says that anyone not believing in them can't reason or learn has a real reasoning problem themselves.
An embodied metaphor: You're so close minded, that even a thin ray of sunshine would not be able to shine through it.
Close minded? I'd have to put that description to the person that makes up stories and then declares them not only true without supporting evidence, but demands that everyone else do the same thing.
But of course that's the way of religion in general, isn't it? "I'm right and you just have to take on my word that I'm right for there is no proof or even slight evidence to back me up."
Another embodied metaphor: On one hand you deny God's existence, and on the other hand you talk about God-like attributes.
The question then arises: If there is no God, why would you conceptualize of God-like attributes? An excellent example of someone whose embodied cognition is twisted to the point of being a pretzel (another embodied metaphor)
First, with your typical exaggerations, you apply statements to me that I've never claimed. For I never said there wasn't a god - I said there is no reason to believe there is one. And there isn't; the limit of your "evidence" is "God lives in the supernatural world" (that there is also no reason to believe in). But that's not unusual - truth does not seem to be a strong suit of those that possess great cognitive values!
God like attributes; there are approximately as many sets as there are believers, for everyone has their own personal concept of what their god is like. Understandable as everyone makes up their own personal version of god - when there isn't one anywhere to be found it's the natural thing to do for those wanting such an entity.
Which then means that I've been regaled for a lifetime with stories about god. Plenty of time to pick up on a few attributes that seem common to lots of people. Perhaps those with only disembodied cognition are unable to reason or learn like that?
And when you find that or those reasons, then I suppose you would be the first one to trumpet it to the whole world, leaving your previous cohorts of deniers simply stunned.
As earthbound as your are, you know of course that in your heart of hearts you will never find the reason(s) to believe, so why do you keep hedging?
You say that "God-like attributes" are nothing but the illusiory ideas of people whose faith in the factual reality of God's existence is immutable. thus the absurdity of it all when they bombard you with their " theistic rantings", that then consequentially led you to consider even for a millisecond that they are not immutable after all.
Possibly. If I could produce the evidence I likely would shout it to the skies (along with the evidence, of course). It may surprise you but some people DO have enough integrity to say "I was wrong".
Agreed - after thousands of years of ridiculous claims to the contrary ("it lives in the fantasy supernatural world I made up") it seems rather unlikely a god will be found. But unlike those using disembodied cognition I don't find opinion or probabilities enough to justify flat statements either way. A "hedge", as you quaintly put it, is necessary to convey truth.
How about you? Has your massive disembodied cognition convinced you yet to come down from the flights of fantasy, root your feet to the ground, and only make claims you know to be true?
There is nothing fanciful (nor disembodied, as you are suggesting) about embodied metaphor and cognition. You might reference the empiricists from as far back as Locke and Berkeley who long ago recognized that cognition is inherently perceptual. The latest proponents of this so-called embodied cognitive science ie the mind thinks in embodied metaphors, are linguists and social psychologists who have been conducting empirical investigations and relevant experiments, and have provided compelling evidence of its circuitous pathway forward and back ie because thinking is for doing, many bodily processes feed back into the mind to drive action.
So the concept that God exist may have empirical basis vis-a vis perceptive language/ cognitive usage.
Could we then say God is but a metaphor but whose reality is not metaphorical but literal/existential?
Yes, cognition is rooted in perceptions - what the senses reveal and how we perceive that revelation. But that does NOT include imagination except as a question to learn the answer to. Which means you haven't perceived a god at all, only used your imagination to construct one, with all the attributes you would like it to have and none of those you don't like, and then proceeded to declare it real and true without bothering to learn if it even exists.
Thus we cannot declare a god, outside of pure mental metaphor, to have any real existence at all. Imagination does not create reality; it can only suggest that it might be so. True cognition, dependent on reports from the senses, rather than simply more imagination must make the final call and it cannot do so with those sensory reports.
"Imagination does not create reality"....If you tell that to Albert Einstein, don't be surprised if he gives you the look of complete askance.
Why? Do you think he was another disembodied cognitive entity, relying on imagination rather than observation and reason?
As he has proven to be far more right than wrong I highly doubt that. We have another disagreement to resolve. But you failed to explain why you thought a god could be brought into existence by talking and thinking about it. Or did you really mean what you said; that the concept of a god can be brought into existence by talking/thinking about it?
"So the concept that God exist may have empirical basis vis-a vis perceptive language/ cognitive usage."
The term "GOD" (or Allah, or Yaweh--depending upon your spiritual persuaion) is in my conceptualiztion a metaphorical term for an ENTITY, that is not in the natural realm( thus "supernatural"). Since the natural world could not have created itself, then an ENTITY in the "SUPERNATURAL" realm was cognitively perceived as the CREATOR of nature( the universe and everything that resides in it whether living or non-living/ sentient or non-sentient). An ENTITY to have such power of creation was reasonably attributed with OMNIPOTENCE and OMNISCIENCE.
Thus the metaphorical concept of GOD AS the CREATOR of the UNIverse. Now the literal (not metaphorical existence ) of that CREATOR could only be verified by you and me and the rest of Homo Sapiens, when as per conception of an afterlife, we all come face to face with GOD.
"In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was GOD" (as per the Biblical narrative) is the supreme example of an embodied metaphor.
Adding an empirical background or substance to the above quoted biblical passage that used embodied metaphor to convey the idea of a GOD----->>>>> research being done at the Wyoming Institute of Technology in conjunction with the Human Genome project have reported that the so-called junk DNA (for their ostensible lack of known function) " bore little resemblance to the coding for biologic function, they bore a striking similarity to the patterns of human language". Linguists in conjunction with the empiricists at the Human Genome Project "began an extensive comparison of the quizzical script found in the "junk DNA" with the catalog of every recorded human language, hoping to find similar lingual threads so that they could begin to formulate translations of the message laying hidden in the junk DNA. The scientists were "rocked with sheer awe when they found that one existent language ie ancient Aramaic, was a direct translatable match for the sequential DNA strands..... Even more amazingly, as linguists started to translate the code within the human genome, they found that parts of the script they contained were at times remarkably close in composition to verse(s) found in the bible, and at times contained direct biblical quotes."
Yes. It was "cognitively perceived". Meaning it was made up from imagination, nothing more and nothing less. Along with the "supernatural realm", also "cognitively perceived" in order to justify the entity that was made up. This is what I've said right along - that any god man has ever claimed existed was made up from imagination rather than from evidence. Putting fancy words to mean the same thing doesn't change that, does it? (Doesn't matter what label man has put on any of it either - could be God, could be Allah, could be the FSM. Whatever label it is understood that it is only a label, not a true metaphor, for something the believer thinks exists.)
Nor does it help when an "afterlife" is made up to make the first two more palatable. With no indicate of that either there is no reason to think any of it has any basis in reality. Only in the "cognitive perception" of those that put imagination before senses when it comes time to learn truth.
Again paraphrasing Einstein: Imagination is more important than knowledge, and may I add to that: specifically knowledge whose only derivation comes from the senses.
So what exactly do you find so inimically abhorrent about imagination. If you say imagination=fanciful thoughts and ideas, then I would agree with you totally. But the imagination (thought experiments) that Einstein used in his theoretical thinking of physics were not fanciful; neither is the imaginative cognition and perception that a God exist, for in its pure derivation, the knowledge that God exist is not only sensually colored but most importantly rationally and intuitively recognized.
Imagination is wonderful. Imagination is great. Very often it is the beginning of vast knowledge and discoveries.
After it has been verified by the senses, which is exactly what Einstein referred to. Have you now verified a supernatural realm (outside of "cognitive perception")? Have you found your god and are ready to present it?
No? The your imagination is worth exactly as much as the last 50,000 years of imagining a god. Zero.
(You might want to consider that there may be gods living in mountains, or the mountain is a god itself. The Hawaiian volcano maybe. After all, all it takes is a declaration that the god part is undetectable and lives in the supernatural world, waiting to receive the soul after death. The same as your god, come to think about it...)
And therein lies the conundrum... you are so tethered to your 5 senses that anything that is not perceived by them must not be true or does not exist. Which to my thinking is what would be inimical to the process of ideasthesia, ie that of formulating and rationalizing abstract ideas that are not generated by our 5 senses. The ability to formulate and rationalize abstract ideas is what separates sentient entities(you and me) from non-sentient ones (the worm that ate your petunia)
Since you are not much predisposed to ideasthesia, could I then categorize you as non-sentient. LOL
Oh, you'd be surprised at what I can imagine - that process of "ideasthesia" (commonly called "daydreaming" or "imagining") is quite alive and well.
I just don't typically tell others that the fantasies are true and factual. I'll leave that to the disembodied cognitive crew that believes whatever they can dream up has to be quite real.
Ever see a housecat chase imaginary creatures? Or a dog pretend it's tail isn't part of it? An ostrich think that hiding from reality means it isn't there? Non-sentient indeed, when imagination takes over for cognition.
As usual you are mumbling from the corner of your mouth... a metaphor, for "you don't know what you are talking about".
Ideasthesia is certainly not day dreaming or imagining.....you might want to google that word and be educated in the process. Oh but I forgot, your cognition is based soley on the sensory input of you 5 senses, and being educated certainly involves more that just being stimulated by those 5 senses.
"Ideasthesia (alternative spelling ideaesthesia) is defined as a phenomenon in which activations of concepts (inducers) evoke perception-like experiences (concurrents)."
Pay attention now - "evoke perception-like experiences". Notice that there is no perception - just perception-[b]like]/i]. Meaning dreams or imagination. NOT meaning perceptions. It means the brain has made up pictures, ideas, people and even ET entities (dreams and imaginary events/things) that may or may not be true. Nothing has actually been perceived - it is all made up. You might want to think hard about what I told you before - using fancy names for everyday common events doesn't change them or make imaginary things real.
Like your god - you have convinced yourself, with great imagination, that it exists. You even think you can "perceive" it...without perceiving anything at all. Just playing with your imagination and convincing yourself that it is true. To see how this works, try eating a bowl of air and pretending, with perception-like experiences, that it is actually true. Do it for a few days and see if your body agrees with your mind that it is actually food - that's the difference between reality and your imagination.
But can you read? I very plainly told you imagination is of great use, and that I have an active one. Apparently your lack of cognition prefers to imagine that it was never said?
Yes...perceiving concepts is totally different from sensing concepts.....and since you are only into sensing, not perceiving. ...then whatever ideasthetic ability you have is sorely limited. ..in fact atrophied to the point of uselessness.
Whereas yours is quite useful...in designing fantasy worlds and characters, then proclaiming them to be real. Got it.
You should take up writing fiction (as a vocation, not just for posting in forums) - at least your imagination would actually be worth something then. Or perhaps you could put that vaunted cognitive ability to work and actually show that some of the fantasies are real and true instead of simply making the claim. That, too, could be of benefit; scientists and inventors have been doing that for millenia, and very successfully. We learned to fly from a dream, we learned to travel to the moon to make fire and a wheel and to cure many diseases from dreaming and imagining about such things. You should look into it - I did mention that imagination can be very valuable when backed up with actual, real, truthful sensory inputs.
But it does require cognitive abilities, and the desire to separate truth from fiction. You seem a little (a lot) short here, but you can do it! I'll help cheer for you!
What exactly do you mean by "truthful sensory inputs".
Neuropsychologists have always considered the "truthfulness of sensory inputs" as a mirage, "sensory inputs" being very unreliable in interpreting what is real or not---- thus the factuality of the statement "there is no objective reality" in so much as "reality' is dependent on subjective interpretation.
As an example: two goldfish, one swimming inside a curved fishbowl, the other swimming in a rectangular fishbowl. The two goldfish will view and interpret the "reality" outside of their fishbowl differently--- the curved fishbowl showing and being interpreted as a curved reality outside while the rectangular fishbowl showing and being interpreted as a linear reality. Another example---your scenario of the ant and the elephant lying on a bed-- the ant interprets the bed as hard , the elephant interpreting the bed as soft.
Now you rely so much on your 5 senses to inform you of what is truthful.....in turns out your 5 senses could be deceitful to the point of fantasy. Now color those sensations with imagination ( not the phantasmogorical kind that you insist I am indulging in), and you will have a better cognitive interpretation of 'reality".
Oh, no argument that our senses occasionally "lie" to us, or that the brain's interpretation of what has been sensed very often does.
But even so, calling an imaginary picture, created solely from the mind without use of the senses at all, as "perception" is far, far inferior to using what the senses and brain, working together, sense and interpret. One has a connection to reality, however tenuous it might be today, the other has none whatsoever. At absolute best it might be an honest effort to describe what the senses report but usually is pure fiction whether recognized as such or not.
Cognitive perception of the world around us, ie experiencing nature at its absolute beauty and grandeur, and of course the occasional entropic outbursts, is one reason why belief in God started and persisted. The other reasons are based mostly on intuitive recognition that nature could not have initiated itself, and the creation of life and sentience could not have been conceptualized and directed by a natural process, but by a supernatural entity. Cognitive perception and intuitive recognition have nothing to do with phantasmogorical imagination.
Now you mentioned the fact that you yourself engages in a lot of fantasy-mongering. Is that the reason why you are so adamant at labeling my use of cognitive perception and intuitive recognition (that led me to believe that God exist), as just another form of fantasy-mongering that you are so used to doing, and therefore could not believe that there are other forms of imagination that do not lead to fantasy thoughts and ideas.
"Cognitive perception" (what imagination comes up with, without using the senses) cannot experience anything at all except ego. Without senses we cannot experience, for example, the grandeur of nature.
No, the belief in a god began and persisted because there was no other answer available and we demanded an answer anyway. "Goddunnitt" is always available, easy and an obvious answer to any question. Nor does "intuitive recognition" (use of cognition and past experience to provide a likely answer) have anything to do with it because there has never been any experience in dealing with or sensing a god.
No, my use of imagination is not what recognizes your attempts to justify calling fantasy as factual. That would cognition and reason. When you want to use pretty words "cognitive perception" for what produces imaginary events, things and places instead of more common ones such as "imagination" I recognize that effort and discard it - regardless of the label you wish to use it remains the same. That recognition comes from cognition, not imagination.
For example, when you "cognitively preceive" that nature requires a creator, intelligent god, I recognize that you are merely making that god up because you have no idea if one was required or not but have no other answer available. I don't imagine that; I recognize it from past experience, logic and reason.
You are the one who insists that a "God" is not required, but how sure are you that God was not required in the creation of the universe. Do you have any empirical proof? If you say yes... then where do you start? The Big Bang and Evolution?
As theories go The Big Bang and Macro-Evolution, are yet to be settled by way of empirical consistencies and permutations, thus could not be relied as the SOLE explanations for the what, why, wherefore of the universe.
We sense the material universe, but we perceive not just its material construct but more importantly its spiritual concept as well. Sensing is not perceiving, but the two together, we get a more coherent and factual interpretion of reality. If you rely solely on sensation, the universe would indeed be as skewed as skewed can be. And that is what you are proposing,,, reality based solely on the sensation derived from your 5 physical senses.
I take the word of the worlds pre-eminent physists and cosmologists that have studied the matter. The word that not a single peer has even tried to argue with.
And you - you are on record as stating that a god was necessary. What do you base that on, except for your ignorance of what happened?
Agreed - we do not yet understand the ins and outs, the details of the Big Bang. But that is not, of course, to invent gods or other answers and then declare them true and real because we are ignorant of those details. But you know that, don't you? That ignorance is insufficient reason to even theorize a god, let alone declare that one MUST exist.
Really? YOU "perceive" it's spiritual concept, in your imagination. Most of us know better than to call such play as perceiving anything at all. And yes, sensing IS perceiving; what you are trying to call perceiving is nothing more than mental play with possibilities and imagination. Nor will the universe suddenly "skew" itself because someone somewhere senses it with their 5 senses rather than make up pretend gods to explain it all.
FYI The ability to detect the invisible, inaudible, untasteible, unsmellible untouchible Spirit of God is dependent on the sixth sense of intuition.
"And you - you are on record as stating that a god was necessary. What do you base that on, except for your ignorance of what happened?" wilderness
One could base the assumption that God created / caused the big bang (or whatever) based on the fact that life was set into motion by SOME force. Why not call it God?
"and yes sensing is perceiving....."
Again sorry to burst your bubble Wilderness but sensing is DEFINITELY NOT perceiving. As per definition "sensing" is just the passive (ie we do not have to be consciously engaging in a sensing process) process of bringing information from the outside world into the body and to the brain, via our 5 physical senses (taste, touch, sight, sound and smell). Perceiving on the other hand is the process of organizing( via the brain) the information that it receives from those 5 physical senses, and translating it into something meaningful.
We do have what we call a 6th sense i.e intuition, and again as per definition, it is the ability to be able to perceive something without having to discover its true nature.
I can pretty much go along with that. Our senses sense something and the brain translates the electrical currents into "perception". Which means you have NOT "perceived" a god or even the necessity of a god as there was nothing sensed.
Nor is intuition a sixth sense in any form of the word. It is nothing more or less than cognition, based on past experience - no sensing at all.
You might want to review the meaning of intuition. I referenced several dictionaries, including your much trusted Wikipedia, and nowhere in their discussion of intuition is there any reference to your :"...It is nothing more or less than cognition, based on past experience-no sensing at all"
You sure? From a quick glance I've found a few references:
"Gary Klein found that under time pressure, high stakes, and changing parameters, experts used their base of experience to identify similar situations and intuitively choose feasible solutions"
"Intuition, as a gut feeling based on experience"
"We think of intuition as a magical phenomenon—but hunches are formed out of our past experiences and knowledge"
My mistake ... I was thinking of instinct in the above post.
Hmm, I still think instinct would apply to past experiences, just on an evolutionary scale. For instance, bird migration patterns were formed thousands of years ago in some species.
The operative word, being "evolutionary scale". The DNA is a supreme example of a very reactive molecule that responds to the demands or imposition of the molecular environment it is exposed to, but changes are never immediate nor drastic.
Could you then say that the DNA is instinctive? If so the more reason why its design and designated purpose all invoke a sentient creator... not the willy-nilly happenstance patterns that nature produce devoid of intent or purpose..
But changes in DNA are both immediate and drastic. Many, if not most, spontaneous abortions are caused by a defect in the DNA. Radiation causes DNA to immediately change, usually resulting in the death of the cell. It is only the species change that is slow, and that is from how evolution works.
No, DNA is not "instinctive", but follows the rules of any other chemical reaction. But even if it were, in some fashion, considered instinctive, can you expand on why a sentience had to design it rather than time and random changes? Because I can see no reason at all that random can't change DNA to produce instinct just as it did to produce limbs, eyes, a brain, etc.
"Time and random changes....."
On the one hand you say that the DNA reacts to environmental impositions immediately and drastically, and here you are saying that the DNA molecule is just a product of time and random changes, and by time, I assume, you mean millions and millions of years of evolutionary random changes. How can a molecule be created over million and million of years and then react immediately and drastically to those random changes? Sounds very wishy-washy indeed.
There is never wishy-washy about the DNA molecule being created by a sentient entity. Sentience imposes planning, designing and intending, and with a molecule as integratedly complex and reactive as the DNA, time( no matter how long) and random changes (no matter how imposing) could never have the temerity and perspicacity to create it. Only sentience has those two modalities.
Throwing "intuition" into some kind of semantic junkyard, does not give due consideration and respect to those inventors who created something useful based on their intuition. And scientists-empiricists naming a sequence of the human DNA as "junk DNA" for its ostensible lack of biologic function, was similarly throwing it into a semantic junkyard.
Now, on further investigation, the "junk DNA" was found to have what scientists described as a "quizzical script", that when compared with the catalog of every recorded human language bore resemblance to ancient Aramaic to the point of saying that the language was a direct translatable match for the sequential DNA strand, found in that "junk DNA.
Stunning revelation, considering that the people mentioned in the Old and New Testament narratives spoke Aramaic....including Jesus of Nazareth.
"I take the word of the world's preeminent physicists and cosmologists that have studied the matter...the word that NOT A SINGLE PEER has even tried to argue with"
Now what word is that, pray tell. I'm absolutely certain that when the Big Bang and Macroevolution were introduced into the general lexicon, a lot of folks (PEER or NON-PEER) had a lot to say in arguing that the empiric undergirding and explanatory basis of those theories are unsettled and therefore the scientific consistencies that are required for these theories to be universally accepted have not been fully/firmly constructed.
How sweet, birds of the same feather. If I let wilderness go, it"s just I won't hunt him down and kill him.
In the Christian world it must be Donald Duck and Micky Mouse holding hands walking into the sunset.
I studied bio diversity from age one where ants other worms amd bugs visited my play crib to age 61. I don't know how the earth begin yet evolution is a good education guess.
Where nearly 1/2 American think the Earth began 6000 years age and 60% think Noah story really happen. From the 99% knowledge about the earth we Human's collectively don't know about . Why should believe in the God based social pressure and old age superstitious?
for the hundreth time: All that exists is evidence of "God"
Some Christains think the Flintstones is a natural history documentary. If you keep repeating it endlessly , tbey will de evolutionary into this theory and begin look and act like this.
Some Christains act like Flintstones because God gets irate talking about dinosaurs.
Wilderness - I challenge you to prove you're right. Also, prove that your faith in the non-existence of God proves truth.
In the meantime, prove that you love your parents, children husband or wife. Prove that any truth is not simply faith. Change is real and constant so the truth is flexible and molded - prove your truth is accurate.
Prove that something that makes you happy and that your happiness is true and not just your own faith in your ideas. Prove to me that there is a difference between that truth and that faith. Prove to me that you are the highest power and that there is no other higher power manifested in this reality.
Prove to me that YOU are right.
Prove to me that love and happiness and truth and faith are things that you have absolute knowledge about and that you are the ultimate authority in them.
Then, when you have proven that you are the end all /be all of creatio, prove to me that the things that you will create in this life will be everlasting. That the matter you join together in this life will eternally maintain its structure and the ideas of your superiority will outlast the next hundred generations of even semi-intelligent life.
Prove to me that your version of how humanity should live is the right way, in full logic and rationale. Prove to me that YOU are the truth, way and life we should all be leading - and I will believe in what you say.
If you cannot prove to me these things, your words are wind. Angry, agitated words of a lonely and insecure being with something to prove and no way to prove it. Someone who is lost in their own grief, shame, guilt, pain, loss or whatever and has no healing outlet for those broken aspects beyond attacking those who would attempt to heal themselves with humility.
Prove to me - as you would have A. Villariasa prove to you - that you are actually even remotely accurate.
Otherwise, if you have nothing to prove. Be quiet and keep your loneliness to yourself. Find peace and stop stirring up conflict. Heal rather than wound like an angry animal.
A. Villarasa's wisdom or ignorance - whichever it may be is clearly irrelevant to your truth so move on.
that's a hell of an argument. "Prove you're right or else shut up and stay lonely." I must say, I'm convinced.
I especially love the parting gem:
"A. Villarasa's wisdom or ignorance - whichever it may be is clearly irrelevant to your truth so move on."
Likewise, Wilderness' wisdom or ignorance - whichever it may be - is clearly irrelevant to your truth (or lack thereof, since you seem to think that there is no truth that isn't a faith). Why don't you follow your own advice and move on?
God is just an ancient belief. "I have no idea where the sun goes every evening, therefore, God!"
To imply that our ancient forebears have simplistic notions of their existence and the world around them is truly incoherent to the point of insipidity. There is nothing incoherent or insipid about thinking that a supernatural entity was responsible for that existence and that world.
GOD CAN HEAR YOU.
Nobody can find enough physical evidence to support either side. So would I be closer to being correct by saying. I Don't know, because I'm limited to the 99% bio mass unknown of this earth.
How much do we know collectively about the 1% bio mass earth?
You mean your incoherence and insipidity? I agree, they continue unabated.
I once heard a story that God one day decided after being bore with the life created on earth to make a man. I was told God got a hand full of mud and formed a man, then God blew the breath of life in it as God had did with the other living creations. I was told that God made man in his own image which was a spiritual not physical. All other living creations were not made in God's image, just man. The spiritual image of God in man gave all mankind the ability to think, reason, and create as no other living think on Earth. Man can construct or destruct with the power of God and also knows the difference in good and evil like no other living thing of Earth. My Doctor told me I need iron, zinc, copper, manganese, chromium, and other metals found in the earth and they are essential for human health. The human body is mostly water. Fire sparks our heart and nerves and the wind is in every breath we take. We are parts of our environment that was used in Intelligent Design by our Creator who is too intelligent for Man to wrap his mind around which animal like without the image of God. Well that's my take on this subject, back to politics.
Would you interpret that story literally or metaphorically?
I interpret that story literally based on a medical and scientific fact.
For as little collective knowledge mankind has. Would you say,base on medical, science and historical facts.
God makes no sense?
I would say, based on medical science and the story I referenced intelligent design is a fact and the designer is called God among other titles. I think it makes no sense for mankind with so little collective knowledge to deny God's existence. Tell me what floats your boat or justify's your existence as for as God is concern?
God is just a word, if it was the source of all good intentions. Then love would be my God with nature being my Religion. I worship this everyday through my artist lifestyle.
I don't understand by why other religions of God are so much about sex and war. Then don't care about the natural environment.
Well, if that's what floats your boat so be it. Live a righteous life and enjoy God in nature and love, i'll buy that too.
I hope religion does not sinks my boat with war. Plus earthling and the natural environment .
Even if they manage to hand humanity it's extinction . The vines will continue to grow over them. Then all other creatures continue without God. Since the jelly fish has been immortal for 650 millions years, it will be the next closest creature to God. Jellyfish rule.
The Creator has a Master Plan. We don't no for sure our beginning and we know not our end so live until you die.. Don't worry be happy..
The Creator better get busy disciplining the Christains behavior for causing most of the wars and pollution in the World today. Unless he is planning on destroying the earth himself and sending most of us to hell for enteral retirement anyways.
Hell of a intelligent design.
You don't have to die to go to hell you can have your hell on earth or your heaven. It all depend on the choices you make. you can be hoping a mountain falls on you but death will flee from you, it all in your spirit and the decisions You make. I wish you peace of mind and spirit ,now I will return to my spiritual battle in the heart of Western Christianity and Religion in Political America its a spiritual battle between good and evil.
What is spiritual about. Spiritual to me is just the unknowns. killing and stealing?
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
An article on National Geographic, in discussing "The Multiverse" stated it simply this way: "One can best get a sense of the fine-tuning problem by thinking about the gravitational force. If this...
by Obscure_Treasures5 years ago
In this advanced era Science has been able to invent new things....bt a above mentioned question still remains on back of my mind...
by Kathryn L Hill2 years ago
Is Natural Selection in Evolution the result of happenstance?Are the Laws of Nature directed in an arbitrary way?Was the Big Bang a random accident?Was Hydrogen created out of Nothing?Were the first copied pairs of DNA...
by kirstenblog4 months ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure,...
by Baileybear6 years ago
<snipped graphic image>Search for 'birth defects' and you will find lots of disturbing images like this one - some look barely human
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
"Sometimes is is difficult to avoid the conviction that life is just a two-dimensional cinema screen, hung amid blackness and nothingness, upon which a, random and meaningless narrative is being enacted. But more...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.