thehomer:

Please inform me. I'd like to know how you came about this "innate purpose of art" thing.

The innate purpose of art is the imitation of life.

Hence the common place saying - "Art imitates life."

Now, if God is understood to be the core of life itself, the encapsulation of life itself, you can then understand what I meant about creation being an imitation of life - God - itself.

Mr. Homer, it is tiresome that I would have to tell you what the innate purpose of art is. It makes me weary, and disillusioned. . . disinclined to discuss much further, if you will push such a basic thing to absurdity, such as suggesting that commercial profit is an innate purpose of art - - - in a discussion where we are dealing with the innate - or intrinsic nature of things.

Meh he was simply one out of many artists. The fact that you see him the way you do doesn't necessarily mean he automatically is "the Holy Grail of creativity". You need to learn to separate your personal desires from certain opinions to avoid your conclusion being clouded by emotion.

Friend, you don't know anything about Leonardo da vinci.

Deep Sight:

The innate purpose of art is the imitation of life.

Hence the common place saying - "Art imitates life."

Now, if God is understood to be the core of life itself, the encapsulation of life itself, you can then understand what I meant about creation being an imitation of life - God - itself.

Mr. Homer, it is tiresome that I would have to tell you what the innate purpose of art is. It makes me weary, and disillusioned. . . disinclined to discuss much further, if you will push such a basic thing to absurdity, such as suggesting that commercial profit is an innate purpose of art - - - in a discussion where we are dealing with the innate - or intrinsic nature of things.

Really? I guess concept art showing galaxies and other artwork showing landscapes simply aim at imitating life even in those cases where there are no living objects.
It seems you're confusing your desires with the external world.

Deep Sight:

Friend, you don't know anything about Leonardo da vinci.

And you don't know anything about art, artists and other creative individuals in general.

Lifeless environments.

Do living things exist in a vaccum? Do they not exist in the context of the so called "lifeless" environments you have referred to?

Is a mountain not part of the environment in which people live. . . .and perceive. . . .

Friend, you make it physically painful talking with you. Its like grating one's bare brain against a bed of nails.

No more.

Deep Sight:

Lifeless environments.

Do living things exist in a vaccum? Do they not exist in the context of the so called "lifeless" environments you have referred to?

Is a mountain not part of the environment in which people live. . . .and perceive. . . .

Friend, you make it physically painful talking with you. Its like grating one's bare brain against a bed of nails.

No more.

You're getting confused. You said art is to imitate life yet we have artworks of inanimate objects so what is being imitated?

The problem that you seem to have encountered is that you've allowed nice sounding catchphrases confuse you into thinking that they are automatically deep statements of the universe when in many cases, with a little contemplation they can be shown to simply sound good.

Good luck to you and I hope the bare brain doesn't bleed too much.

Ps: Grating one's bare brain against a bed of nails wouldn't be as painful as you seem to think. There are things one can do that would cause serious pain but that isn't one of the worst.

Deep Sight: I've never claimed that "complex forms with purpose-oriented functionalities" have sprung into existence magically.

Yes you have: and you have also done worse: such as argue the existence of purposeful beings in a purposeless universe, as well as support the claim that the human eye could, as Dawkins said, (emerge in its first stage), in a a single "lucky" evolutionary step.

Stop erecting Strawmen: You are making an awful habit of it. Yes, humans have constructed purpose in a purposeless universe. That is the essence of dasein (stick with me, there's a reason I'm reintroducing the term into this post). It is anthropocentric humans, much like the drop in a puddle, that imagines the hole it finds itself situated was purposefully made for its comfort. In any case, I have never claimed that because the universe lacks an over-arching purpose, humans appeared magically. I live that to the theists.

Second,you are doind Dawkins's argument a disservice by slightly misrepresenting it. What he argues (and the evidence points in that direction) is that mutations can cause the incidence of eyes, and with continued genetic changes and selection, the human eye may naturally evolve. In a sense, mutations are "lucky" happenstances. What moves it beyond luck is selection.

It's not a story. It's based on currently available data.

Your understanding of it has been severally proven to be woeful, friend.

Except it hasn't, buddy.

[Quote author=Deep Sight]

KAG:

When a man sees a painting, it is not gut instinct but reason and commonsense that suggest it has a painter, No?

Yes. Comparatively, when some humans saw the disappearance of the sun, gut instinct and commonsense suggested that the gods were driving the sun from the sky. As it were, by diverse methods, depending on your culture, moving it from one part of the stationary earth (know, yet again, bygut instinct and common sense) to somewhere else.

What does a primitive misconception of a solar eclispe have in common with the logical and scientific idea of cause and effect and the idea that motion requires a propelling trigger?[/quote]

They were arrived at through common sense, and sometimes, reason. The likes of Aristotle, even used reason to point to a stationary earth. Moreover, Hume (as I alluded to earlier) used logic to debase the idea that every thing must have a cause. Science also indicates that some phenomena may not need a cause to operate (again: virtual particles and radioactive decay). There's no getting around that.

Finally, your argument becomes flat when you continually equivocate most effects needing a cause (mostly naturalistic causes, I might add) with: therefore, an unspecified deity causing effects must exist. It's fallacious.

[Quote]
Virtual particles and radioactive decay. Not unless your definition of material is different from the lexicon.

I really hope you do not do this for a living.[/quote]

Thanks for the affirmation. Handwave duly noted.

[Quote]

Why? By the way, to make by position clear, I haven't said the universe didn't have - for lack of a better word - a "precursor" (time, as we understand it, started within the universe). This should not be mistaken for having to constantly point out, though, that old syllogism that rests on the premise "everything has had a cause" is flawed. Heck, Hume pointed out the problem with the argument centuries ago.

Precursor. . . .lol. Now, semantics.[/quote]

Semantics? How so? A singularity "precedes" the universe, space and time. The trouble is, one is always hard pressed to find terms for an ante state that aren't dependent on, or founded in, time.

Deep Sight: What do you understand to be a "being"?

At best Dasein. At worst, an entity with some sort of awareness, preferably self awareness. The ability to appreciate, to some degree, its existence and construct a view of living from it.

What do you understand to be a being?

Green with envy. Enjoy India!

Um . . .

I am sorry to answer you with links and pictures, but my conviction is that people who discountenance intelligent design simply have yet to grasp the nature and design of the biological elements of conscious life. It's that simple.

No one could have a thorough understanding of the working of the biological elements of conscious creatures and deny intelligent design. No one.

Those that claim they do, factually do not. Its that simple.

But worst of all, such people do not have a grasp of the import of sentience in a being.

It's refreshing to know that you're arrogant enough to dismiss with mere utterances the view of many scientists and philosophers, many of whom are biologists (or involved somewhat in the subject of evolution), who assert that no intelligent designer is necessary for the emergence of species and their respective features. Of course, that many of them are in fact heavily involved in the study of the nature and design of the "biological elements of conscious life" shouldn't stop you, who clearly knows very little on the subject, from asserting that they should aspire to your personal worldview, or else.

Deep Sight: Why is a painting done by an artist?

Reflect closely on that, and therein you might find your answer.

Hint: self expression.

Deep Sight: The innate purpose of art is the imitation of life.

Hence the common place saying - "Art imitates life."

Now, if God is understood to be the core of life itself, the encapsulation of life itself, you can then understand what I meant about creation being an imitation of life - God - itself.

Neoplatonism meet Deep Sight. Deep Sight, Neoplatonism. You two should get along. The rest of us will skip to the critiques and apparent holes in the arguments and utterances upon which you two will most certainly agree.

P.S. If at any point you have anything but fallacies, false syllogisms and utterances, I'll respond duly.

KAG:

At best Dasein. At worst, an entity with some sort of awareness, preferably self awareness. The ability to appreciate, to some degree, its existence and construct a view of living from it.

What do you understand to be a being?

Now here we are. It is intriguing to me that you open up the possibility of “being” existing either “with some sort of awareness” or “preferably self awareness”. Correct me if I am wrong, but what this means is that you countenance the possibility of the existence of beings in a state of “some sort of awareness” – even if such an entity is not self aware.

Is this the case?

Yes, humans have constructed purpose in a purposeless universe.

Do you realize that this is a positive statement? It is a positive affirmation that the universe IS purposeless. To be absolutely certain of that, you need to also be absolutely certain of how the universe came about. You would require omniscience.

Clearly you are neither omniscient nor aware of how the universe came about: ergo, you cannot affirm positively that the universe is purposeless.

The best, and most honest thing that you could do would be to state that you do not know if it has a purpose or not.

It is odd that you are able to make such definitive statements in vacuums the very same way you accuse the religionist of doing.

Second,you are doind Dawkins's argument a disservice by slightly misrepresenting it. What he argues (and the evidence points in that direction) is that mutations can cause the incidence of eyes, and with continued genetic changes and selection, the human eye may naturally evolve. In a sense, mutations are "lucky" happenstances. What moves it beyond luck is selection.

Maybe I need to communicate better. Let's pause for a moment and understand carefully.

I said to you earlier on, or perhaps on another thread, that the phenomenon of consciousness is central to this matter. I do not know if you understood me accurately but I’ll try and explain what I was saying yet again.

I mentioned that with reference to a feature such as the eye – only a self aware and sentient creature would require such a development – as it would, being conscious, require the ability to observe its environment. Many creatures perform this function in other ways, such as through sound, touch, and other senses. At all events, what I seek to impress upon you cardinally is that all of these features are features of consciousness.

The question thus is – what impetus of selection within the evolutionary process leads from unconsciousness to consciousness. What drives and actuates this.

If for example, there is (as there must be) a link, or several links which bridge the gap between unconscious, non-sentient life forms such as unicellular organisms and conscious life forms, such as the most simple self-conscious creature – what competitive impetus, what selective process, would derive any need whatsoever within our purposeless universe, to develop the feature of self-consciousness.

It does not stop there. Conscious, self-aware creatures come into existence. I hope you appreciate already the massive leap which I tried to draw your attention to – to wit – unconscious to self-conscious – but let us not tarry there. There is more. The self-conscious life forms further develop highly complex organs such as eyes which are tailored to observe their environment.

It appears you are a scientist, and I certainly do not need to take you through the delicate complexity and fitness for purpose of the eye – or the more intriguing way in which it functions by being attached by message-bearing nerves to a super computer called a brain which then interprets signals into images – I am sure I needn’t explain to you the fact that this is a process of such intricate and delicate precision and complexity that it is frankly numbing that a suggestion could be made that this is not a definitively driven process. Now in thinking about this, do not lose sight of the original evolutionary leap that has to be made – inexplicably, and for no apparent reason – from unconscious life to self-aware life forms.

What we see is the feature of self-consciousness interpolated inexplicably in a puddle of non-consciousness – and that feature further advanced by powers of observation driven by incredibly delicate and complex mechanisms.

Darwin himself recognized the implausibility of the development of the eye, and Dawkins in his write up forcibly conceded that it is altogether implausible. What is strange is that which he then advanced – and which you have supported – the notion that such could have nonetheless developed through a combination of luck and natural selection. Any casual observation of the eye debunks this – especially in terms of Dawkins statement that it could have “sprung out of bare skin in a single lucky step”. KAG, that is ludicrous.

When you say “natural selection” with reference to the eye, I hope you grasp the full length of the argument I am making – namely that natural selection is driven towards needs and survivability. What could have been the impetus then for – first – self consciousness from non-consciousness (which is not needed in anyway by an unconscious creature by dint of its very unconsciousness) - - - and then complex powers of observation.

KAG, you must agree that this is wholly implausible. The least that you should accept is that it is not a position that could make sense to even the most simplistically commonsensical of people.

Before you revert to me, please do take a moment to reflect on this, particularly with reference to the subject of consciousness. In what way and by what impetus would any non-conscious life form begin to become conscious – and self-conscious – to address exactly what evolutionary requirement?

That which is unconscious is unconscious and has no further needs – and as such, an argument from survivability and thus selection is dead on arrival. I hope you understand this point – and how it leads in to the next point I made about the features of conscious observation such as the eye.

Now before I leave the subject let me just add for good measure that the entire house of cards becomes absolutely untenable when we recognize that the chain of implausibility stretches even further back – namely that whereas we have started with an assumption of unconscious life forms, in reality we are supposed to accept that the life forms themselves sprung spontaneously from dead elements!

Thus we are actually speaking about a chain that moves from dead matter to spontaneous life, and then – without any evolutionary impetus whatsoever, transits to conscious and self-conscious life – and further develops complex powers of observation.

Finally, all this is said to occur in a purposeless universe.

It’s heavy KAG.

It’s really a heavy load that you guys are pushing here, and the least you can do is to recognize that, and not seek to render anyone else who recognizes that as being in some fashion or the other simply thoughtless.

Science also indicates that some phenomena may not need a cause to operate (again: virtual particles and radioactive decay). There's no getting around that.

This is a hundred per cent false, as has been shown to you SEVERAL TIMES before.

The trouble is, one is always hard pressed to find terms for an ante state that aren't dependent on, or founded in, time.

Which is a very simple and clear logical pointer to the existence of a timeline over and beyond that which commences with this universe.

, and Dawkins in his write up forcibly conceded that it is altogether implausible. What is strange is that which he then advanced – and which you have supported – the notion that such could have nonetheless developed through a combination of luck and natural selection. Any casual observation of the eye debunks this – especially in terms of Dawkins statement that it could have “sprung out of bare skin in a single lucky step”

I mentioned before that you misread Dawkins. I read the article in question (the improbability of god) and the parts you mentioned which I have quoted above. I think the point was made that he may be a poor philosopher but a brilliant biologist. I do not see any contradiction there (unless we really want to split hairs).

I guess this is where you say he contradicted himself

We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being?

The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is
now set for the next small change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too complex to have come about in a single act of chance.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-758572.0.html

Consider the following quote from Dawkins in the same article, the improbability of god

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too large. The "correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes simultaneously. The correct recipe is one particular combination of changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances. We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is perfectly plausible that the modern eye could have sprung from something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a very slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less elaborate eye sprang from a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently small differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you are bound to be able to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare skin. How many intermediate stages are we allowed to postulate? That depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been enough time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?

Also

Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That would be like having the almost infinite luck to hit upon the combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit closer to the lucky number the vault door creaked open another chink, you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the secret of how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed impossible. Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive anything from anything else.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-758572.0.html

There is no contradiction there. Kindly read it again and see if you are not persuaded. Feel free to point out scientific errors if he has made them, but as far as the write up is concerned, there is no discrepancy/

^ I don't think you have addressed the pith of that which i argued above. I started from the point of view of consciousness and the evolutionary impetus that could lead to it, before any requirement for organs of observation may arise, and built that up. I think you should read again what I wrote and see what I was saying.

--> Dead Matter --> Non Conscious Living Organisms --> [size=30pt]*[/size] Conscious Living Organisms --> Organs of observation (e.g: the eye).

Each and every step above proceeds along leaps that are absolutely unfathomable, nontheless, the leap you need to address for the purpose of this argument starts where i have placed the asterix.

Dawkins article was a nursery school write up for nursery school thinkers and I have already pointed out the many staggering absurdities in it in the other thread.

Cardinally, the article - "The Improbability of God" - (being directed at the original creative factor which is said by creationists to be an intelligent agent), must naturally commence its submission from the point of view of the commencement of existence and life - since that is what is at issue.

Rather than do this, the entire article completely evades and sidesteps that critical issue - which is at the centre of the matter. I had said in the other thread -

As it happens, he does not even address this necessary commencement and the irredeemable riddle contained therein at all: he simply


    a. Assumes the existence of things already


    b. Avoids the question of the first instance of generation of living things and


    c. Commences his discussion with a full fledged biological evolutionary process already magically in place –


And thereby assumes that this suffices to obviate the requirement for an initial causative factor going beyond the scenario that he has ridiculously commenced with. 

I hope you can understand the simple fact that it is beyond id.iotic to advance an argument against the existence of a creator, by writing an article which does not make any attempt to address the initial question of how things came into being - - - > but rather commences its premises from the point of already existent things - when the core question is and remains how such things came to exist ab initio!

On that, you must see reason.

It is very easy to conclude this argument, we just need agree on a few rules.
@Deep Sight
What do you need to be told be convinced that God does not exist. Say 10 things that you think will prove to you that God does not exist examples and illustrations will be appreciated.
If you want, I can easily give you 10 things I would demand of any God before I believe they exist. It will be very easy to do. So you start,

^ I am sorry, I cannot make such a list, because the very act of compiling such a list requires a conscious and intelligent mind, which itself is evidence of the holistic mind, which is what God is.

So can't play your game, sorry.

It is interesting that you admit that you are just blubbering about and you don't know what you are talking about.

Deep Sight:

Cardinally, the article - "The Improbability of God" - (being directed at the original creative factor which is said by creationists to be an intelligent agent), must naturally commence its submission from the point of view of the commencement of existence and life - since that is what is at issue.

Rather than do this, the entire article completely evades and sidesteps that critical issue - which is at the centre of the matter. I had said in the other thread -

As it happens, he does not even address this necessary commencement and the irredeemable riddle contained therein at all: he simply


   a. Assumes the existence of things already


   b. Avoids the question of the first instance of generation of living things and


   c. Commences his discussion with a full fledged biological evolutionary process already magically in place –


And thereby assumes that this suffices to obviate the requirement for an initial causative factor going beyond the scenario that he has ridiculously commenced with.

I hope you can understand the simple fact that it is beyond id.iotic to advance an argument against the existence of a creator, by writing an article which does not make any attempt to address the initial question of how things came into being - - - > but rather commences its premises from the point of already existent things - when the core question is and remains how such things came to exist ab initio!

On that, you must see reason.

*sigh* we are doing this all over again ? Ok. From Dawkins

There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start from nothing. [/b]It couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. [b]This seems to mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started. DNA was a later product of this earlier cumulative selection.
Before this original kind of natural selection, there was a period when complex chemical compounds were built up from simpler ones and before that a period when the chemical elements were built up from simpler elements, following the well-understood laws of physics. Before that, everything was ultimately built up from pure hydrogen in the immediate aftermath of the big slam, which initiated the universe.

There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain the origin of all things. This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do: just set off the big slam, then sit back and wait for everything to happen. The physical chemist Peter Atkins, in his beautifully written book The Creation, postulates a lazy God who strove to do as little as possible in order to initiate everything. Atkins explains how each step in the history of the universe followed, by simple physical law, from its predecessor. He thus pares down the amount of work that the lazy creator would need to do and eventually concludes that he would in fact have needed to do nothing at all!
The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the important point is that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum that had to be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to get started, that irreducible minimum is certainly extremely simple. By definition, explanations that build on simple premises are more plausible and more satisfying than explanations that have to postulate complex and statistically improbable beginnings. And you can't get
much more complex than an Almighty God!

We spoke about this on the other thread. Dawkins is but a man. He can only assert what he knows. The very origin of the universe itself he never claimed to know. He says it is not within his field. Anybody (absolutely anybody) can claim "God did it". It doesnt require a brain to do that. The man is simply speaking of what knowledge he has. He never avoided these

As it happens, he does not even address this necessary commencement and the irredeemable riddle contained therein at all: he simply


   a. Assumes the existence of things already


   b. Avoids the question of the first instance of generation of living things and


   c. Commences his discussion with a full fledged biological evolutionary process already magically in place –

He addressed them even if it was to state his lack of knowledge about them.
As for the "irredeemable riddle", we get it everywhere. All you need to ask is "who created God". In the end, it is a puzzle we may never solve.

As for addressing the point of creation, Dawkins refers his readers to "The Creation", a book written by a physical chemist.

I hope you can understand the simple fact that it is beyond id.iotic to advance an argument against the existence of a creator, by writing an article which does not make any attempt to address the initial question of how things came into being - - - > but rather commences its premises from the point of already existent things - when the core question is and remains how such things came to exist ab initio!

On that, you must see reason.

The article is titled "The Improbability of God".The key word being "improbability". When biologists present the complexity of DNA and other stuff to show that life was intelligently designed, do you take issue with them for not also addressing the issue of how such things came to exist ab initio ? The man is honest enough to say what he knows and what he doesnt.

Ok. Just for the sake of argument, lets change the name of the article to "How Complex Life Can Arise From Simple Forms". Lets also remove references to God, leaving the science only. Will you still have a problem with it ?

We spoke about this on the other thread. Dawkins is but a man. He can only assert what he knows.

<<
You are also but a man, and you can only assert what you know from a book printed by men.
and stories in it written by men, not barbaric ones if I may add.
There is no proof whatsoever that God wrote any book or inspired anything, none at all.
If you wrote a book and you said that God inspired it, then we only have your word to proof it, which sad to say it is not good enough.
People pass on religion to their children, if God was the creator of the bible he would not be at the mercy of Sunday school teachers or semi-illiterate pastors.
>>

The very origin of the universe itself he never claimed to know. He says it is not within his field.
Anybody (absolutely anybody) can claim "God did it".
<< All except scientist who take the trouble to find a better answer
??

Jay, changing the title will not mean anything. The fact remains that Dawkins set out to discredit the idea of an intelligent first cause of all things, but sadly, he did not address anything even close to the origin of things. He starts his premises with already existent things. This is an inescapable flaw on which the whole write up collapses because an article on the improbability of God, must naturally first address the origin of all things in existence, which he does not do.

@ Zataxs, please stop addressing me in terms of the bible or other religious books. You seem to assume that a belief in God is the same thing as religious faith: that is not necessarily the case. As i said before, i am not religious, and my personal creed does not derive from the bible, the quoran, or any other such religious script.

Thanks.

zataxs:

We spoke about this on the other thread. Dawkins is but a man. He can only assert what he knows.

<<
You are also but a man, and you can only assert what you know from a book printed by men.
and stories in it written by men, not barbaric ones if I may add.
There is no proof whatsoever that God wrote any book or inspired anything, none at all.
If you wrote a book and you said that God inspired it, then we only have your word to proof it, which sad to say it is not good enough.
People pass on religion to their children, if God was the creator of the bible he would not be at the mercy of Sunday school teachers or semi-illiterate pastors.
>>

The very origin of the universe itself he never claimed to know. He says it is not within his field.
Anybody (absolutely anybody) can claim "God did it".
<< All except scientist who take the trouble to find a better answer
??

By the red part, I mean to say it is the easy way out.

Deep Sight:

Jay, changing the title will not mean anything. The fact remains that Dawkins set out to discredit the idea of an intelligent first cause of all things, but sadly, he did not address anything even close to the origin of things. He starts his premises with already existent things. This is an inescapable flaw on which the whole write up collapses because an article on the improbability of God, must naturally first address the origin of all things in existence, which he does not do.

Deep Sight, Ill just leave off here.

@Deep Sight
very wise, you have seen the folly of scripture, that's a great step in the direction. Keep walking.

jayriginal:

By the red part, I mean to say it is the easy way out.
Deep Sight, Ill just leave off here.

Jayriginal, I understand what you have tried to say, but the point remains that he ought to have then recognised that his limited area of expertise had no bearing on the core cosmological question of the origin of all things. Thus his article remains centrally inchoate - it fails to address its core subject. Furthermore it is important to note that merely explaining a process via which a phenomenon occurs does not mean that the phenomenon did not have an initial cause.

The portions of his article which you quoted which noted the fact that he was not addressing the origin of all existence amounts to nothing but a handwave, an admission that he is not suited to address the core issue in the first place.

Deep Sight:

Now here we are. It is intriguing to me that you open up the possibility of “being” existing either “with some sort of awareness” or “preferably self awareness”. Correct me if I am wrong, but what this means is that you countenance the possibility of the existence of beings in a state of “some sort of awareness” – even if such an entity is not self aware.

Is this the case?

Yes. At the basest level of my definition of what it means to be a being, yes, some sort of awareness that gives the entity, at the very least, a rudimentary appreciation of its existence. It's a generously broad defintion.

Now, again, what's your defintion of a being?

Yes, humans have constructed purpose in a purposeless universe.

Do you realize that this is a positive statement? It is a positive affirmation that the universe IS purposeless. To be absolutely certain of that, you need to also be absolutely certain of how the universe came about. You would require omniscience.

Clearly you are neither omniscient nor aware of how the universe came about: ergo, you cannot affirm positively that the universe is purposeless.

The best, and most honest thing that you could do would be to state that you do not know if it has a purpose or not.

It is odd that you are able to make such definitive statements in vacuums the very same way you accuse the religionist of doing.

Yes, it's a definitive statement. It's as positive a declaration of my view as the ones that have appeared numerously in your posts both in this thread and other ones of a similar vein. So, you're either being the worst of hypocrites, or blissfuly ignoring the implied nuances in what I have written. It's apparent that I'm not omniscient, but as I have made my arguments for the lack of a need for an overarching purpose for the universe previously, it should have been clear why I have no trouble in a strong declaration where the usual caveats of "based on currently available evidence, etc" are implied.

To be clearer by analogy, by the same token, you wrote: "Everything in existence is a part of the infinite expression of the infinite mind of existence itself: which is what reality is." and

"The ultimate purpose is the infinite expression of the eternal and infinite mind that is itself reality"

Thus:

"Do you realize that th[ose are] positive statements? It is a positive affirmation that the universe HAS purpose. To be absolutely certain of that, you need to also be absolutely certain of how the universe came about. You would require omniscience.

Clearly you are neither omniscient nor aware of how the universe came about: ergo, you cannot affirm positively that the universe has purpose.

The best, and most honest thing that you could do would be to state that you do not know if it has a purpose or not.

It is odd that you are able to make such definitive statements in vacuums the very same way you accuse the religionist of doing."

By the way, we do have a good idea of how the universe may have become: expansion from a singularity.

Second,you are doind Dawkins's argument a disservice by slightly misrepresenting it. What he argues (and the evidence points in that direction) is that mutations can cause the incidence of eyes, and with continued genetic changes and selection, the human eye may naturally evolve. In a sense, mutations are "lucky" happenstances. What moves it beyond luck is selection.

Maybe I need to communicate better. Let's pause for a moment and understand carefully.

I said to you earlier on, or perhaps on another thread, that the phenomenon of consciousness is central to this matter. I do not know if you understood me accurately but I’ll try and explain what I was saying yet again.

I mentioned that with reference to a feature such as the eye – only a self aware and sentient creature would require such a development – as it would, being conscious, require the ability to observe its environment. Many creatures perform this function in other ways, such as through sound, touch, and other senses. At all events, what I seek to impress upon you cardinally is that all of these features are features of consciousness.

The question thus is – what impetus of selection within the evolutionary process leads from unconsciousness to consciousness. What drives and actuates this.

Survival. Species with senses have an evolutionary advantage.

If for example, there is (as there must be) a link, or several links which bridge the gap between unconscious, non-sentient life forms such as unicellular organisms and conscious life forms, such as the most simple self-conscious creature – what competitive impetus, what selective process, would derive any need whatsoever within our purposeless universe, to develop the feature of self-consciousness.

First, there's no evidence to suggest that most of the living species on earth are self-conscious. But I digress. To answer your question, it would seem apparent that species develop and discard sensory organs to aid their survival. No divine purpose needed for that. The organisms that survive get to pass their genetic make-up. The ones without the urge to survive have passed, or will pass, away. Sensory organs have developed in a myriad of ways in organisms. There's no need for consciousness, just nerve receptors.

Further, self-consciousness would have arisen not, from scientific observations, from the universe caring about the speck that is the earth, but because of increasing functions in brains. Which become more complex to, yet again, aid survival and beat both predators and preys.

It does not stop there. Conscious, self-aware creatures come into existence. I hope you appreciate already the massive leap which I tried to draw your attention to – to wit – unconscious to self-conscious – but let us not tarry there. There is more. The self-conscious life forms further develop highly complex organs such as eyes which are tailored to observe their environment.

And the unconscious creatures? Of what do they constitute evidence? That is, if your logic is to try to tie self-consciousness to a universe with a purpose, then are unconscious creatures evidence of a lack? Besides, are you suggesting our "pale blue dot" in a small corner of the universe is the purpose of the universe? Waste of space, it would seem (to paraphrase Sagan).

Anyway, some species also evolve a disuse of those organs. They don't think about it. Evolution of organs isn't thought into by the organisms (whether conscious, self-conscious, or unconscious) but is codified by selective pressure. Also, do you mind not using the terms "conscious" and "self-conscious" interchangeably. They mean different things.

It appears you are a scientist, and I certainly do not need to take you through the delicate complexity and fitness for purpose of the eye – or the more intriguing way in which it functions by being attached by message-bearing nerves to a super computer called a brain which then interprets signals into images – I am sure I needn’t explain to you the fact that this is a process of such intricate and delicate precision and complexity that it is frankly numbing that a suggestion could be made that this is not a definitively driven process. Now in thinking about this, do not lose sight of the original evolutionary leap that has to be made – inexplicably, and for no apparent reason – from unconscious life to self-aware life forms.

What we see is the feature of self-consciousness interpolated inexplicably in a puddle of non-consciousness – and that feature further advanced by powers of observation driven by incredibly delicate and complex mechanisms.

Yeah, that's all nonsense. The simplest eyes (which have arisen in several different ways, and independently) have been noted to have come about through mutations that render a patch of skin with nerves capable of differentiating in a way that lends rudimentary surveillance possible. The species doesn't need consciousness (or self-consciousness) for that advantage to become a selected trait. Eventually an eye not too dissimilar to that of humans may be gotten. However, the human eye is rather average, particularly when compared to that of many other species. They don't need self-consciousness for their eyes, either.

Also, there wasn't a great leap from unconsciousness to self-awareness. It happened gradually. Very gradually. If you have any tangible evidence that it was driven by anything else other than mutations, genetic drift and selection, here's the time to show your work. Otherwise, I'd have to ask why you think it's impossible for sensory organs and consciousness to have arisen naturally.

Darwin himself recognized the implausibility of the development of the eye,

No, he didn't.

and Dawkins in his write up forcibly conceded that it is altogether implausible.

No didn't.

What is strange is that which he then advanced – and which you have supported – the notion that such could have nonetheless developed through a combination of luck and natural selection. Any casual observation of the eye debunks this – especially in terms of Dawkins statement that it could have “sprung out of bare skin in a single lucky step”. KAG, that is ludicrous.

What, exactly, in the human eye (for example) could not have developed through evolution? Also, why is it ludicrous that an eye could have developed as a result of mutations and selection that caused its beginnings as a spring out of bare skin? It's not like there aren't species with that particular quirk, you know.

When you say “natural selection” with reference to the eye, I hope you grasp the full length of the argument I am making – namely that natural selection is driven towards needs and survivability. What could have been the impetus then for – first – self consciousness from non-consciousness (which is not needed in anyway by an unconscious creature by dint of its very unconsciousness) - - - and then complex powers of observation.

KAG, you must agree that this is wholly implausible. The least that you should accept is that it is not a position that could make sense to even the most simplistically commonsensical of people.

Strawman. You don't understand the philosophy nor the science you're trying to discuss in this instance. With all due respect.

Before you revert to me, please do take a moment to reflect on this, particularly with reference to the subject of consciousness. In what way and by what impetus would any non-conscious life form begin to become conscious – and self-conscious – to address exactly what evolutionary requirement?

Evolution of nerves, central nervous system, brain.

That which is unconscious is unconscious and has no further needs – and as such, an argument from survivability and thus selection is dead on arrival. I hope you understand this point – and how it leads in to the next point I made about the features of conscious observation such as the eye.

Good to know that you think viruses and bacteria are conscious. Right?

Now before I leave the subject let me just add for good measure that the entire house of cards becomes absolutely untenable when we recognize that the chain of implausibility stretches even further back – namely that whereas we have started with an assumption of unconscious life forms, in reality we are supposed to accept that the life forms themselves sprung spontaneously from dead elements!

Thus we are actually speaking about a chain that moves from dead matter to spontaneous life, and then – without any evolutionary impetus whatsoever, transits to conscious and self-conscious life – and further develops complex powers of observation.

Finally, all this is said to occur in a purposeless universe.

It’s heavy KAG.

You do not understand the science nor the philosophy against which you're attempting to argue.

It’s really a heavy load that you guys are pushing here, and the least you can do is to recognize that, and not seek to render anyone else who recognizes that as being in some fashion or the other simply thoughtless.

You're right. However, if someone that clearly doesn't know half of the science and less of the philosophy they think they are using to argue against said science, then it becomes easy to be, unfortunately, somewhat dismissive.

Science also indicates that some phenomena may not need a cause to operate (again: virtual particles and radioactive decay). There's no getting around that.

This is a hundred per cent false, as has been shown to you SEVERAL TIMES before.

You know, just simply utterring that something is false, etc, doesn't deviate from the validity of what I stated. Unless, of cause, you know of causes for radioactive decay and virtual particles.

The trouble is, one is always hard pressed to find terms for an ante state that aren't dependent on, or founded in, time.

Which is a very simple and clear logical pointer to the existence of a timeline over and beyond that which commences with this universe.

No. The evidence suggests that time started after inflation. There's nothing to suggest time outside of our universe.

KAG:


Yes, it's a definitive statement. It's as positive a declaration of my view as the ones that have appeared numerously in your posts both in this thread and other ones of a similar vein.

Counter-accusation does not answer the question.

The fact remains that you have positively asserted that the universe has no purpose. To make that statement, you need to be omniscient.

Hand-waving at my own propositions does not do anything – I simply have conveyed my own impressions as to the purpose of the universe – I have not come to you affirming positively anything in that regard. You, on the other hand, have stated severally and positively that the universe does NOT have a purpose.

Aside from requiring omniscience, it is also a hugely presumptuous statement for a tiny being living on a tiny speck of a planet to make. We do not even know the reaches of our own galaxy alone, and yet, one tiny individual, living on one speck of a planet, boldly affirms that the entire super-structure – of which he knows next to nothing – has no purpose.

I am struggling to be very polite when I respectfully state that [-----!#$%&?!@$%!!!-----] . . . . . . , well – that is beyond the borders of the most ridiculous presumptions that could possibly be imagined.

Aside from this, you may not appreciate that it is a contradictory, self-defeating and nihilistic statement for a sentient being to make.

By the way, we do have a good idea of how the universe may have become: expansion from a singularity.

Neither you nor anyone even knows what exactly that singularity was, how it was, and why it was. And yet, sitting on this speck of a planet - - you yawn affirmatively that the entire universe has no purpose.

You are God! I bow down! I worship you!

Survival. Species with senses have an evolutionary advantage.

Despite being God you do not read. Or perhaps you don’t need to read since you are God. Because if you had read, surely you would have grasped the argument made. Despite being God, you failed to grasp the argument made. Here – I’ll simplify it – non conscious unicellular organisms survive and thrive sufficiently and indeed excellently - and thus have no conceivable evolutionary need to develop any senses whatsoever – given that unconscious life is more successful than conscious life on earth

Besides, are you suggesting our "pale blue dot" in a small corner of the universe is the purpose of the universe? Waste of space, it would seem (to paraphrase Sagan).

It cannot be such a small pale blue dot, if it is the abode of a being such as yourself, who is so important and knowledgeable of the entire universe as to be able to make statements about the purposelessness of the entire system, can it?

And no, I am not, and would never suggest that the earth alone is the purpose of the entire universe. Although not proven yet, I am of the view that there exist hordes of planets out there bearing intelligent sentient beings. But that is a matter for another day. Or another lifetime.

Anyway, some species also evolve a disuse of those organs. They don't think about it.

That a disused tool will wither away is commonsensical, and does nothing to suggest that the tool would have come into being by itself through blind and purposeless selective pressure.

Also, do you mind not using the terms "conscious" and "self-conscious" interchangeably. They mean different things.

If you had read anything I wrote you would have seen the very careful pains I went to exactly to differentiate these.

Yeah, that's all nonsense. The simplest eyes (which have arisen in several different ways, and independently) have been noted to have come about through mutations that render a patch of skin with nerves capable of differentiating in a way that lends rudimentary surveillance possible.

You are into voodoo.

Worse, you did not read what I wrote about the argument from consciousness. I informed you that only self-conscious creatures would require powers of observation. You clearly have not taken the time to assimilate the very basic facts inherent therein, or the obvious implications.

No, he didn't.

Yes he did.

It is pathetic sir, to deny that which exists in writing, and which you have earlier referred to yourself.

No didn't.

Again, Yes he did.

It is pathetic sir, to deny that which exists in writing, and which you have earlier referred to yourself.

What, exactly, in the human eye (for example) could not have developed through evolution? Also, why is it ludicrous that an eye could have developed as a result of mutations and selection that caused its beginnings as a spring out of bare skin? It's not like there aren't species with that particular quirk, you know.

Simply the fact that unconscious creatures do not require eyes, sir – in addition to the fact that the argument from survival collapses on account that unconscious life forms thrive in even greater and more successful abundance than conscious life forms – where then is the evolutionary impetus towards consciousness!

This singular fact gives a damning and irretrievable lie to your entire magical and voodoo-istic supposition.

Unless, of cause, you know of causes for radioactive decay and virtual particles.

Your ignorance on this subject has been repeatedly exposed – and I needn’t refer you to the thread where you tendered an apology for making wrong suppositions after I specifically corrected your wrong (un)scientific suppositions on the matter.

Amazing, for one who constantly states that others “do not understand the science” they are discussing.

I will not rehash the matter here. It has long since been closed against you.

No. The evidence suggests that time started after inflation. There's nothing to suggest time outside of our universe.

Strange. Why then did you say this –

”The trouble is, one is always hard pressed to find terms for an ante state that aren't dependent on, or founded in, time.’

Unless you are willfully and irretrievably confused, you would recognize that you cannot speak of “ante” outside the precept of time. Notions of “before” and “after” are evidentially time based notions. You also stated that time commenced “after” inflation. You cannot use the word “after” outside a precept of time. Just like the word- “before”, the word - “after” is also an evidentially time-bound notion. I will not debate that with you even for a million dollars.

Deep Sight:

Yes, it's a definitive statement. It's as positive a declaration of my view as the ones that have appeared numerously in your posts both in this thread and other ones of a similar vein. So, you're either being the worst of hypocrites, or blissfuly ignoring the implied nuances in what I have written. It's apparent that I'm not omniscient, but as I have made my arguments for the lack of a need for an overarching purpose for the universe previously, it should have been clear why I have no trouble in a strong declaration where the usual caveats of "based on currently available evidence, etc" are implied.

Counter-accusation does not answer the question.

The fact remains that you have positively asserted that the universe has no purpose. To make that statement, you need to be omniscient.

Counter-accusation? Or pointing out the inherent hypocrisy or dishonesty in decontextualising my assertion? Also, no one needn't be any more omniscient when asserting the universe lacks an overarching purpose, than the person who makes a claim based on available data. Having said that, I'll be careful to use less strong terms in future. Now let's get back to where you define what you mean by a being.

Hand-waving at my own propositions does not do anything – I simply have conveyed my own impressions as to the purpose of the universe – I have not come to you affirming positively anything in that regard. You, on the other hand, have stated severally and positively that the universe does NOT have a purpose.

I don't think you know what the term "hand-waving" means. Yes, you have indicated that the earth and humans are enough to suppose the universe has a pupose. However, you've also strongly affirmed positively those claims and more. Of course, anyone not trying to mess around realises the context and implied nuance. Unlike you, one needn't offer the red-herring of "ooh, you're trying to be omniscient" to rebutt.

Aside from requiring omniscience, it is also a hugely presumptuous statement for a tiny being living on a tiny speck of a planet to make. We do not even know the reaches of our own galaxy alone, and yet, one tiny individual, living on one speck of a planet, boldly affirms that the entire super-structure – of which he knows next to nothing – has no purpose.

The insignificance of our planet, particularly when it's noted that it is surrounded by innumerable lifeless planets and rocks lends itself to the idea that the universe lacks an over-arching purpose. Parsimoniously, the universe appears to just be, with the evidence not revealing any purpose on a grand scale. Philosophically, the argument may go either way, but I see more merit and coherence in syllogisms that don't have to resort to the unnecessary personage of deities.

[quoteI am struggling to be very polite when I respectfully state that [-----!#$%&?!@$%!!!-----] . . . . . . , well – that is beyond the borders of the most ridiculous presumptions that could possibly be imagined.

[/quote]

Go with the data.

Aside from this, you may not appreciate that it is a contradictory, self-defeating and nihilistic statement for a sentient being to make.

On the contrary, it is life affirming.

Neither you nor anyone even knows what exactly that singularity was, how it was, and why it was. And yet, sitting on this speck of a planet - - you yawn affirmatively that the entire universe has no purpose.

It's what the evidence indicates. You without any evidence, "sitting on this speck of a planet [. . .]yawn affirmatively that the entire universe [b] has [a purpose]. Implying - often subtly - that we are it.

You are God! I bow down! I worship you!

Get off your knees, man! No worshipping before the 21st of October.

Despite being God you do not read. Or perhaps you don’t need to read since you are God. Because if you had read, surely you would have grasped the argument made. Despite being God, you failed to grasp the argument made. Here – I’ll simplify it – non conscious unicellular organisms survive and thrive sufficiently and indeed excellently - and thus have no conceivable evolutionary need to develop any senses whatsoever – given that unconscious life is more successful than conscious life on earth

Nonsense. Will you stop arguing against things of which you clearly have little knowledge. While it has often cropped up in many of our discussions, it's getting over the top now. By the way, still keeping the score on positive affirmations? You just made more, despite a lack of omniscience.

Anyway, to address your argument. Several "non-conscious unicellular organisms" do survive with senses. They have had an evolutionary pressure to develop those senses. Euglena (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena), for instance, have a very basic eyespot with which they use to observe their habitat. I won't even get into the ridiculous misuse of the terms "conscious" and "unconscious".

Senses aid survival: whether it be in unicellular or multicellular species. What we find, then, are the many ways mutation and selection (a lot of the time aided by pressure) effect changes in both predators and preys.

[quote]Besides, are you suggesting our "pale blue dot" in a small corner of the universe is the purpose of the universe? Waste of space, it would seem (to paraphrase Sagan).

It cannot be such a small pale blue dot, if it is the abode of a being such as yourself, who is so important and knowledgeable of the entire universe as to be able to make statements about the purposelessness of the entire system, can it?

Well, not until aliens recognise pancake Friday and milkshake Wednesday as holy earth days, I suppose.

And no, I am not, and would never suggest that the earth alone is the purpose of the entire universe. Although not proven yet, I am of the view that there exist hordes of planets out there bearing intelligent sentient beings. But that is a matter for another day. Or another lifetime.

Fair enough.

Anyway, some species also evolve a disuse of those organs. They don't think about it.

That a disused tool will wither away is commonsensical, and does nothing to suggest that the tool would have come into being by itself through blind and purposeless selective pressure.

Except when the evidence suggests it. If a species evolves out of using eyes because it impinges their survival, it goes to show that survival plays an aspect in the use and disuse of organs.

Also, do you mind not using the terms "conscious" and "self-conscious" interchangeably. They mean different things.

If you had read anything I wrote you would have seen the very careful pains I went to exactly to differentiate these.

You did not take careful pains to differentiate between the two terms. Look, here's an example:

"Conscious, self-aware creatures come into existence. I hope you appreciate already the massive leap which I tried to draw your attention to – to wit – unconscious to self-conscious – but let us not tarry there. There is more. The self-conscious life forms further develop highly complex organs such as eyes which are tailored to observe their environment."

That's just one example. It makes what is already a tough discussion that much harder when you blur disparate terms and won't even define others.

Yeah, that's all nonsense. The simplest eyes (which have arisen in several different ways, and independently) have been noted to have come about through mutations that render a patch of skin with nerves capable of differentiating in a way that lends rudimentary surveillance possible.

You are into voodoo.

Worse, you did not read what I wrote about the argument from consciousness. I informed you that only self-conscious creatures would require powers of observation. You clearly have not taken the time to assimilate the very basic facts inherent therein, or the obvious implications.

When you say "self-conscious", what exactly do you mean? Are Euglena self-conscious? Evidence? Are Flies? Worms? Do you have any evidence to back up the view that the creatures I mentioned - who are all capable of observance - are self-conscious?

[quote][quote]Darwin himself recognized the implausibility of the development of the eye,

No, he didn't

Yes he did.[/quote]

It is pathetic sir, to deny that which exists in writing, and which you have earlier referred to yourself.

Again, Yes he did.

It is pathetic sir, to deny that which exists in writing, and which you have earlier referred to yourself. [/quote]

How about you read the Origins of Species first, or at least not get your information from Creationists' quote-mines. Darwin's rhetorical style in his writings was to present a point as if insurmountable, then demolish said problem. Thus, we find that on the subject of the eye, Darwin raises the question, assures there must be some difficulty in approaching its evolution, then goes on to explain how it may have happened, beginning with:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"

What, exactly, in the human eye (for example) could not have developed through evolution? Also, why is it ludicrous that an eye could have developed as a result of mutations and selection that caused its beginnings as a spring out of bare skin? It's not like there aren't species with that particular quirk, you know.

Simply the fact that unconscious creatures do not require eyes, sir – in addition to the fact that the argument from survival collapses on account that unconscious life forms thrive in even greater and more successful abundance than conscious life forms – where then is the evolutionary impetus towards consciousness!

This singular fact gives a damning and irretrievable lie to your entire magical and voodoo-istic supposition.

So, basically, you have no physical aspect of the human eye that couldn't have developed through evolution? It would seem all you have at this point is empty rhetoric.

Unless, of cause, you know of causes for radioactive decay and virtual particles.

Your ignorance on this subject has been repeatedly exposed – and I needn’t refer you to the thread where you tendered an apology for making wrong suppositions after I specifically corrected your wrong (un)scientific suppositions on the matter.

So, you don't know any causes for radioactive decay and virtual particles? Empty rhetoric again. You should dig up that thread and realise that I apologised for making a mistake in mis-defining terms. Unlike some, when I'm wrong I'll always acknowledge said mistakes.

Now, do you acknowledge that the evidence suggests there's no known cause for radioactive decay and virtual particles? If not, why?

Amazing, for one who constantly states that others “do not understand the science” they are discussing.

Oh, you clearly do not understand most of what you argue against when it comes to science or philosophy.

I will not rehash the matter here. It has long since been closed against you.

Really? Is this the part where we proclaim internet victory?

No. The evidence suggests that time started after inflation. There's nothing to suggest time outside of our universe.

Strange. Why then did you say this –

”The trouble is, one is always hard pressed to find terms for an ante state that aren't dependent on, or founded in, time.’

Unless you are willfully and irretrievably confused, you would recognize that you cannot speak of “ante” outside the precept of time. Notions of “before” and “after” are evidentially time based notions. You also stated that time commenced “after” inflation.


You cannot use the word “after” outside a precept of time. Just like the word- “before”, the word - “after” is also an evidentially time-bound notion. I will not debate that with you even for a million dollars.

Exactly!Well, apart from the "confused" part. Time - irrespective of how you choose to define it - started after inflation. What this means is that because of linguistic problems, we're going to struggle to define and describe the start of time and "before" it, particularly when language is predicated on time. ~It can be represented mathematically, though.

You don't have to argue it with me. For the most part, you just repeated what I wrote and its implications in different words.

KAG:


Having said that, I'll be careful to use less strong terms in future.

You certainly should.

I don't think you know what the term "hand-waving" means.

Lol. As I wrote that I soooo knew you would say exactly that. Perhaps you don’t realize that finger-pointing through counter-accusations whilst entirely refusing to address the point raised is indeed a most airy dismissal.

Yes, you have indicated that the earth and humans are enough to suppose the universe has a purpose.

That is not the way that I framed it. It is rather the existence of self-conscious minds that points to this.

The insignificance of our planet, particularly when it's noted that it is surrounded by innumerable lifeless planets and rocks lends itself to the idea that the universe lacks an over-arching purpose.

Firstly, you should be able to draw a distinction between physical sizes and the relevance of the existence of self-conscious minds – particularly when discussing a subject such as purpose – the size and number of lifeless rocks and planets is thus of no consequence in this regard.

Secondly, as you are all too aware, the earth could not exist on its own without the supporting super-structure of the solar system, just as the solar system could not exist on its own without the further supporting super-system of the milky-way galaxy – nor could the galaxy exist on its own outside its cluster, and the cluster could not exist without the over-all super structure of the universe. For this reason, your argument about the existence of numerous lifeless planets and rocks does not sit properly in the least: for such structures are at all events necessary precursors for the existence of planets such as the earth in the first place.

Your argument reads like trying to locate a tree that does not derive its existence from the environment and soil about it. And then worse, complaining about the vastness of that environment, and the fact that you have not seen other trees therein. That simply does not wash as an argument for lack of purpose for the very reason that such an environment was needed for the tree to exist in the first place therein.

Parsimoniously, the universe appears to just be, with the evidence not revealing any purpose on a grand scale.

It seems to me that when you speak about “evidence” you are willing to take everything into consideration except the Earth, its stock of life, and even your own sentience. For some strange reason, all these are to be excluded from the “evidence.”

You are also aware that man has explored less than a pin point of the universe, and as such it is rather hasty to conclude that the earth is the only planet bearing life – indeed, scientists do agree that given that we are made of star-dust, it is statistically improbable that the universe with its staggering size would not contain other life forms. Any one who thinks otherwise probably has not come to grips with the size of the universe. I am certain however, that you have an idea.

Philosophically, the argument may go either way, but I see more merit and coherence in syllogisms that don't have to resort to the unnecessary personage of deities.

I have never said anything about a personage.

On the contrary, it is life affirming.

How so, please?

It's what the evidence indicates. You without any evidence, "sitting on this speck of a planet [. . .]yawn affirmatively that the entire universe has [a purpose]. Implying - often subtly - that we are it.

I repeat: I do not believe mankind on earth to be the sole purpose of the Universe. But yes, I do say that the universe is an amazing enough thing to inspire the idea that there is a thought behind it. I do not see how that is unreasonable. To be sincere, the idea that it has no meaning or purpose is starkly more bizarre.

Nonsense. Will you stop arguing against things of which you clearly have little knowledge. While it has often cropped up in many of our discussions, it's getting over the top now.

Lol. If that’s the case, why keep responding? You could just gallop off in a huff on your high horse and ignore my ignorance, couldn’t you? Aha.

By the way, still keeping the score on positive affirmations? You just made more, despite a lack of omniscience.

Oh dear, but since you acceded you are not omniscient, then surely you could not know whether or not I am omniscient, and just by the way, I just might be.

Anyway, to address your argument. Several "non-conscious unicellular organisms" do survive with senses. They have had an evolutionary pressure to develop those senses. Euglena (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena), for instance, have a very basic eyespot with which they use to observe their habitat.

In the first instance, you know very well that the eyespot of which you speak is not an eye in the proper sense. It is an organ tailored to detect certain waves of light for the organism to adjust better for photosynthesis. But this does not disturb the argument being made at all events so I will not dispute that or tarry on that.

Secondly, I should state that I speak of senses that deliver the quality of sentience to a being. A unicellular organism that is able to feel its environment and as such may move towards or away from light, for example, is not thereby sentient.

Thirdly and most critically – let me simply state that to the extent that an Euglena may have any form of direct observation of its environment and even engage in some rudimentary form of hunting, then such an organism indeed bears some form of consciousness however miniscule or rudimentary.

This does nothing to take away the essential point I made: namely that organisms with no such observable levels of consciousness vastly outnumber all conscious life forms on the earth. This is an incontrovertible fact: and so long as this remains the case, then you CANNOT argue that starting with non-conscious unicellular organisms, there would have been any evolutionary impetus whatsoever towards consciousness.

This fact remains firm and cast in steel: exactly what impetus would have led such organisms to develop features of consciousness when they were surviving and multiplying at an excellent rate: indeed – they still survive and multiply at a greater rate than any self-conscious creatures do.

You thus cannot argue survivability as a reason for the evolution of conscious or self-conscious organisms – given that non-conscious organisms such as those survived and thrived even better than self-conscious creatures!

Senses aid survival: whether it be in unicellular or multicellular species.

Senses of the sentient variety are completely irrelevant for the class of organisms I referred to: and we must indeed start with that class because the core evolutionary riddle is exactly how that class began to evolve into conscious and eventually self-conscious creatures?

Fair enough.
That a disused tool will wither away is commonsensical, and does nothing to suggest that the tool would have come into being by itself through blind and purposeless selective pressure.

Except when the evidence suggests it. If a species evolves out of using eyes because it impinges their survival, it goes to show that survival plays an aspect in the use and disuse of organs.

You have yourself blundered without recognizing it. You say – “use and disuse” – this betrays the obvious fact that you are really speaking about use of already existing organs and not the development of completely new, previously absent organs.

How about you read the Origins of Species first, or at least not get your information from Creationists' quote-mines. Darwin's rhetorical style in his writings was to present a point as if insurmountable, then demolish said problem. Thus, we find that on the subject of the eye, Darwin raises the question, assures there must be some difficulty in approaching its evolution, then goes on to explain how it may have happened, beginning with:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"

No doubt, having recognized a sticking point for something that rendered his theory inchoate, he needed to explain it away, didn’t he?

The evolution of the human eye remains implausible: and more implausible also the evolution of the human brain.

Simply the fact that unconscious creatures do not require eyes, sir – in addition to the fact that the argument from survival collapses on account that unconscious life forms thrive in even greater and more successful abundance than conscious life forms – where then is the evolutionary impetus towards consciousness!

This singular fact gives a damning and irretrievable lie to your entire magical and voodoo-istic supposition.

So, basically, you have no physical aspect of the human eye that couldn't have developed through evolution? It would seem all you have at this point is empty rhetoric.

It is alarmingly cowardly, that you refuse to logically refute the central point in my write up – it is still staring you in the face above: and is inescapable: and I say it again:

The argument from survival collapses on account that unconscious life forms thrive in even greater and more successful abundance than conscious life forms – where then is the evolutionary impetus towards consciousness!

That is the question: STOP dodging it!

So, you don't know any causes for radioactive decay and virtual particles? Empty rhetoric again. You should dig up that thread and realize that I apologised for making a mistake in mis-defining terms. Unlike some, when I'm wrong I'll always acknowledge said mistakes.

Good grief.

The mistake was not in mis-definition: you very fundamentally claimed that a quantum vacuum was as nothing – in your bid to show that virtual particles arise from “nothing” – as a way for you to show that things can arise from nothingness, and thereby avoid the basic and commonsensical wisdom that things do not arise from nothingness. This was a grave fundamental misconception because I had to draw your attention that there is in fact no such thing as a perfect vacuum, and that these vacuums contain low gaseous pressure – and that was how your contention that things arise from nothingness collapsed like a house of cards.

Now, the fact that you obviously still have not grasped the essentials of that discussion just shows who is dancing without proper dancing shoes around here!

Exactly!Well, apart from the "confused" part. Time - irrespective of how you choose to define it - started after inflation. What this means is that because of linguistic problems, we're going to struggle to define and describe the start of time and "before" it, particularly when language is predicated on time.

The problem is not linguistic. The problem is a logical problem. And the fact that you still repeat that time commenced “after” inflation is an irredeemable contradiction. There could only be an “after” if there was already a timeline. That’s iron clad.

^ Still on holiday?

I remember reading the following exchanges last year and feeling pained to my soul. I was so disgusted I didn't even bother to respond with my thoughts. When do we want to grow up in nigeria? See as everybody dey do like say na dem papa get language. The first I'd heard of such a thing as an indian summer was the previous year when we had one and it was mentioned in the newspapers. I had never heard of the term before then and quite probably neither had the ITKs below.

Deepsight's mistake was quite a reasonable one considering that he is in Nigeria. I wonder how many of the people bloviating below can speak their mother tongue to half the level of this foreign language that is making them puff up with such pathetic pride. Very Very Sad.

KAG:

P.S. Going out to enjoy the Indian Summer and enjoy the company of my better half. I'll try to get back on any comments as soon as time allows.

Deep Sight:


Green with envy. Enjoy India!

Enigma: ^^^ I thought it was funny too; some misunderstanding I guess. 

PS I too enjoyed the Indian summer today.

Daiquiri:

SMH. Give it a rest

Daiquiri:

Green with envy of 28°? When where he is, is hotter than that
Enjoy India! That really takes the biscuit. Upon all the high & mighty literary, it just shows and showed up

^^^ E tire me o. We had a great laugh about those antics in my office.

Deep Sight:
^^^ E tire me o. We had a great laugh about those antics in my office.

People in your office know that you do Nairaland? Na wa o! Me I hide my nairaland involvement from people in my real world. It brings contempt. The last time I mentioned internet forums to someone, she responded with, " You, young man, have got too much time on your hands!".

An aunt saw me on it once and hissed saying, 'you get time'.

Nairaland is my dirty secret.

Pastor AIO: I remember reading the following exchanges last year and feeling pained to my soul. I was so disgusted I didn't even bother to respond with my thoughts. When do we want to grow up in nigeria? See as everybody dey do like say na dem papa get language. The first I'd heard of such a thing as an indian summer was the previous year when we had one and it was mentioned in the newspapers. I had never heard of the term before then and quite probably neither had the ITKs below.

Deepsight's mistake was quite a reasonable one considering that he is in Nigeria. I wonder how many of the people bloviating below can speak their mother tongue to half the level of this foreign language that is making them puff up with such pathetic pride. Very Very Sad.

LOL!

Here are my thoughts on the OP:

phxc:
The idea that the universe is created is plausible and more believable than the the idea that it is not. Score one for the creationists. Then the argument starts from here --- who created the universe?

Good question, good start.

phxc:
On that there are a lot of possibilities but the one that holds sway is that of a single creator who is male. Therein lies the crux of the matter, why do people think the universe originated from a single entity and that he is masculine and not feminine?

Assuming/Specifying "gender" for the Creator is only a matter of convenience. Choosing to refer to the creator in the feminine will not reduce deity.

phxc:
Though this idea begs for evidence, it is also very believable if it only stayed at that. But then it is stretched further and this creator is given attributes that are basically made up. Some say he has a son who came to the earth to save us from the wrath of his father, others disagree.

Jesus being the "son" of God, son here means that which fully represents God, a chip off the block. It's not a biological paternity.

phxc: Some contend that he has a book that contains his thoughts though not everyone that believes in this God agree on which book is the right one since there are different versions.

Since there are different people, there will be different versions. One size may not fit all.

phxc: It is still not proven that the creator of the universe is a single entity, but the question is - Taking for granted that the universe originated from a single entity,

If we accept that the universe exists in harmony, then that means the creator(s) is/are not involved in internal conflict. Then even if there were many of them, they act in unity and as such, are a single entity.

phxc: which religion that claims to be right one to knowledge of the creator is actually the right one?

"Right" is a word that demands context and requires a yardstick or reference point. What do you mean by "right"?

phxc: If it can be found in a book, what makes such book the right one against other books?

See question above.