Is man 'programmed' to seek a 'god'?

[kochman]

No indeed, contradicting evidence doesn't really matter, just brush it aside.

And you accused me of copping out. Sweet

That wasn't a cop out at all, it was a very plausible situation.
Much more plausible than the answer you have still failed to give...

How did we go from inanimate (rock/gas/etc) to animate?
Where is the missing link? What was it?
I've asked you this several times now, and gotten no realistic answer whatsoever from you...
I'll go ahead and assume it's because you have none, just like science has none.

Thanks for playing! Have a nice thread.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I edited the last post, need confirmation

Ah, that's not really the missing link. The missing link is what non-scientist usually refer to when addressing transitional fossils. The problem there is, there have been transitional fossils found.

Now about the origin of life, there are hypothesis about it, but no scientific theories.

edit: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. My issue has been all along about people claiming things without evidence. Science doesn't claim to know where and how life originated. Science by definition needs evidence to claim anything at all. All it can do is throw possibilities and makes sure it labels them as possibility. Earlier you opted: God could have caused the big bang, and I agreed it wasn't impossible. Unlikely, but not impossible. The same applies to the origin of life. So, again, really confused why Origin of Life (calling it Missing Link is confusing) is such a big deal for you in this since no scientist nor I ever claimed to have that answer.

And this nitpick as you call it was specifically injected into the Birth of Jesus story to comply with the prophecies. Regardless whether the writer was a decade off, it was unheard of, impractical and no reason to have the male return to his hometown. They needed to link land owners with their possessions, sit was the tax-people that travelled. The story of Joseph and Mary having to travel to Bethlehem because Augustus made all males go to their home town is false. It's only told that way, because of the prophecy was told that way.

 

[Kyriakos]

So i guess we arrive at what was always the issue, namely if the psyche=body (for it is not only the brain) or not.

I would not have a problem with this tautology, if it could be presented just why man is as complicated if he is just another basic brute from nature's viewpoint, or even some freak accident.

Mind you, if i really wanted to type something implausible, i could say that the mind is so complicated that, like a star, upon its death energy is bound to transform to something else But for the time being i will contend that even if the mind (and rest of the body) = man, then it seems that nature either did not compute anything correctly (man is known to be the sole creature that can commit suicide, for example) or that it might have had some other plan too. Remember Alpha Centauri

To get back on topic: when i was still a student of philosophy i had thought a great deal about the brain-psyche issue. But it seems to me that it is hard enough to speak of the brain's functions as something that actually belongs to us, in the sense that we control them. It seems that the vast majority of what is going on in the brain is either not conscious, or is partly conscious. If you think of it you might even argue that our own thoughts are not exactly ours, since we appear to be the person steering the wheel in this boat, but the rest of the boat, although by name it belongs to us, is an utterly different substance. Likewise our thoughts come and go like clouds on a stormy day, and clouds were a strange spectacle from men of old ages who could not say what they were. Likewise we are primitives in relation to self-reflection and how the brain works.
So it would seem that, partly at least, we should not speak so adamantly about a mechanism (the body-brain) that we have yet to know in any real, deep manner.

Just quoting my last post, to make it easier to see, and if anyone agrees that it is helpful to set a new basis in the discussion which does seem to need it currently (for the past arguments seem to have led to this, at least the part of them in which i was too involved)

 

[timtofly]

Uhh... no? Why would you think that?

To get to common ground. WL stated that apologetics starts with an assumption. Science also starts with an assumption about the Bible. Where is the point that we can agree on before the assumptions begin?

Ziggy and Warpus deny us the Bible because they have assumed science and history discredits it. Apologist assume that science and history backs it up. It seems that we are at a pass as to whose assumption is the most believable. I never claimed that the Bible is historically accurate. They claim that it cannot be because it does not line up with history. Eyewitness accounts do not always line up with history. They claim that God lied to us by making us believe that the eyewitness accounts should line up with history. It seems that is their assumption. Critical scholars have used that assumption to discredit and cast doubt on what apologist say and believe.

If there is no common ground, then that may be a fact, and conversation will get no where. Both sides can throw out their opinions and be done with it. This is not a troll and I am not attacking anyone. I am just pointing out the facts found in this thread, and why both sides needs to come to some agrreement on what can be the basis more than one side is based on falsehood and one side is not based on falsehood.

I may be wrong, but I get the impression that the Bible is false, until proven true, and science is true until proven false. I am not an apologist, therefore, I cannot prove anything to anybody. If that means I cannot debate, then so be it. Thus I am under the assumption that the Bible is true until proven false also, and using science and historical facts is not the way to prove it false, because there is not enough facts from that time frame to do so. It is historical that the Jews portrayed a Moses years before Jesus was on the scene to invent the Christian concept of said phenomenon. Can we all agree that the Gospels are not trying to rewrite history but are just synopsis of eyewitness accounts? Why do people want to "interpret" that there was one eyewitness and the others where just copycats 1700 years after the facts? Where do they get the right to assume that?

@ peter grimes

It was just a question. Nobody even took the time to say why they wanted to live or die. My assumption is that most people want to live, not because they have to die at some point, but there is within most people the desire to keep living. That does not mean that there is an afterlife, but it seems to stongly favor that more people want to live than just cease to exist. Personally though I think that the desire to live is more than just self protection and survival. There are those who kill other people for fun, knowing that others will replace them. There are those who live in misery. There are those who think that we can live long and prosperous lives. There are millions of other perspectives out there, but there are people who know that life can be enjoyed, and not neccessarily at other peoples expence, thus life can go on even if one dies.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Kyriakos. Are we derailing your thread by our tangent?

I'd be happy to drop it, or move to another thread called "All things Science" if so.

 

[Kyriakos]

Not at all, in fact i admire that you take part in not only one but two ongoing debates in the thread

I just felt that my latest contribution might be of some use to the one debate

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, I must be honest and admit I'm not really taking part in 2. When I discussed with you I had dropped the other subject.

And by the looks of it, that will happen again.

 

[Tani Coyote]

The spark of life, to me, has the same origin as why there's gravity or why atoms bond - it just happens/happened.

Now, whether God created gravity, or if gravity just exists, I do not know. Why does there HAVE to be an actor behind everything?

Why stop at life? Why did the Big Bang suddenly decide to happen? Where did all that energy come from? The alternating Big Bang/Big Crunch theory explains a lot, but ultimately, there was a beginning.

It could just be, or it could be the work of a deity. Me personally? I'm more interested in finding cures for cancer or cleaner sources of energy.

 

[Kyriakos]

When i was in middle elementary school i thought of the idea of the world (not sure if i was influenced by something to do that or not) as being a tiny particle, or toy, of some colossal creature, much like a glass bead. In a way it made sense to me, since i reasoned that if there are obviously some smaller particles in matter (maybe i thought of that due to my toys being lego and other parts that formed a sum) then this division of particles does not really need to end somewhere. So who knows, perhaps inside the division of the division of the division of the division etc etc etc of one bead we use as a toy, is a whole cosmos. Naturally that cosmos would have to evolve at very different speed as our own external cosmos, due to its massively smaller size. Also the same could be true for larger cosmoi, "as above so below" etc

 

[Tani Coyote]

In Sonic the Comic, they had a universe so small it could fit inside an atom. Who's to say there indeed, isn't another universe that small, that we merely can't see? Atom exist, despite us being unable to see them, why not sub-atomic life as well?

The scale of the universe is mind-boggling. It's hard to fathom the idea that such a complex, intriguing creation has been created entirely by a set of forces, rather than some sort of sentient actor. That, I feel, is ultimately where the choice of religiosity is made - one decides whether the universe's complexity requires a deity, or if it does not.

 

[warpus]

Well, that certainly helps your opinion, doesn't it?!
Good grief... we can't use the book that it is centered around to discuss it now? If you frame the debate that way, you will always win... period.

I didn't say book, I said books. If you include religious texts there's just far too much material to go through.. thousands of books! Each with contradicting facts and opinions... It just doesn't make sense to include them all.

Not wrong, it is theory, nothing more. There is not one solid piece of evidence.

Eh? A scientific theory cannot be one unless it has plenty of evidence backing it up.

If it was a hypothesis, you might have a point...

(man is known to be the sole creature that can commit suicide, for example)

This isn't true, is it? I swear I have heard of animals committing suicide by walking off a cliff.

So it would seem that, partly at least, we should not speak so adamantly about a mechanism (the body-brain) that we have yet to know in any real, deep manner.

But we also shouldn't make assumptions about it, unless what we are saying has already been discovered and studied. Otherwise you could say pretty much anything you wanted to.

Ziggy and Warpus deny us the Bible because they have assumed science and history discredits it.

I did not. I said we shouldn't use *any* religious text.. The Bible is just one of many. It just doesn't make sense to include them all, given the nature of what a religious text usually is (allegory, myth, oral tradition written down, some fact, etc.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@Tanis, And the other way around, maybe we're in an atom. Or even stranger, an electron.

There is one strange theory which says that the whole universe has a complete number of 1 single electron zipping in and out of existence everywhere to make up all the electrons in the Universe.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This isn't true, is it? I swear I have heard of animals committing suicide by walking off a cliff.

Not lemmings, they were thrown off by Disney on a conveyor belt (if that isn't an Urban Myth)

But there are beetles who literally blow themselves up to defend against attackers. Taking one for the team.

 

[Kyriakos]

Do they know its going to be their end though? Other insects seem to try to harm one in ways which directly result to their death, and it seems mostly possible that they don't realize it is going to be the ending move on their part.

Maybe large animals that fall off cliffs have a very different "idea" of what they are doing.
Of course they might be trying to ritual sacrifice themselves to get to animal heaven. Deus est anima Brutorum after all

 

[Domen]

It's just that our imagination allows us to invent Gods where there in fact are none.

There is no scientific proof for existence of God or Gods, but there is also no scientific proof for lack of such.

It feels good when an unknown is answered - so we strive for it.

I would say that it also feels good when an unknown remains unanswered and mysterious. Mysterious is exciting. Such as: what was before the "Big Bang"?

Whenever someone claims that some kind of human behaviour can be explained by a gene (or a set of genes), I reach for my knife. In other words, utter bullcrap, and I don't even have to read it.

You say that human behaviour cannot be explained by a set of genes = you say that God or Gods exist?

Imo genes influence the mind, but ultimately we experience the cosmos, both the external and the internal, primarily through the mind, and therefore self-reflection is also done through it.

What is "the cosmos"? Seems to me that your "cosmos" is pretty similar to God, or Gods - or an equivalent of God, or Gods.

If we assume that God (including "God" named "the cosmos") does not exist, then everything is determined by a set of genes - also self-reflection.

 

[Tani Coyote]

There is no scientific proof for existence of God or Gods, but there is also no scientific proof for lack of such.

While I lean towards hopeful on religious matters, I'll just use an example atheists commonly use.

Do you need science to know there is no Santa or Easter bunny?

Do I need science to know that Sonic the Hedgehog is not lurking behind me, and darts away whenever I look back?

 

[Winner]

There is no scientific proof for existence of God or Gods, but there is also no scientific proof for lack of such.

Irrelevant. For something to be considered true there must be some evidence to support it. In the absence of any evidence, a proposition must be considered false by default.

You say that human behaviour cannot be explained by a set of genes = you say that God or Gods exist?

No, Mr. Non-Sequitur. I am saying that human behaviour, reasoning, imagination, etc., are such complex things that they can't be reduced to a few genes expressing themselves. That's not how genetics works, and whoever tells you otherwise is lying. It would be like saying that what you can do on a PC is determined solely by its hardware, without any regard to what software is installed on it.

 

[Domen]

By this i do not just mean that examining one's consciousness is obviously a mental phenomenon, and genes take part in that, in largely undefined ways.

If we assume that one's consciousness and mentality is equal to one's brain (or - in other words - that consciousness / mental phenomenons i.e. mentality exist only because brain exist, and that death of human brain is the end to human consciousness / mental activity), then we must assume that genes - particularly those which "programmed" our brains - not only "take some undefined part" in mental phenomenons - but determine them. And only genes do.

No, Mr. Non-Sequitur. I am saying that human behaviour, reasoning, imagination, etc., are such complex thins that they can't be reduced to a few genes expressing themselves.

But we are (exist) because our genes are (exist). We are determined by our genes. We evolved from other organisms because genes of those organisms - starting from simplest bacteria - evolved, mutated and changed. Thus how can you say that God does not exist and at the same say that genes are not everything, that human behaviour, reasoning, imagination, etc. - are more complex than just genes and are determined by something more than just genes.

Then - tell me please - WHAT else determines this. How is this "something else" called, if you don't call it "God"?

For something to be considered true there must be some evidence to support it.

Then not only God has to be considered as "false", but also plenty of other things, which are commonly recognized as "true".

For example morality and law. Because there is no evidence that we should observe morality, other than our own considerations.

 

[Tani Coyote]

To assume there is evidence for God, furthermore, takes more faith in itself.

The complexity of the universe, in particular. It would be the most sound evidence for God, I feel, but it raises the question of whether complexity requires a sentient force behind it.

There's of course, religious texts, but that's even worse since that's based on circular logic. "It's true because it says it's true."

Beyond the complexity of the universe, there's the moral nature of mankind. But could that not be explained by simple survival instinct? Being good to eachother is better for survival in the long term, individually and collectively.

I guess we all find out when we die. Place your bets in the meantime. Life really is one big gamble.

 

[Domen]

To assume there is evidence for God, furthermore, takes more faith in itself.

To assume there is evidence for - for example - Law and Morality takes just as much faith.

Bible and churches are no less evidences for existence of God, than Code of Penal Law and prisons / electric chairs are for existence of Law (and Morality - if we assume that "Law is the minimum of Morality", or that Law and Morality are partially overlapping).

Maybe this was not a perfect example but I hope you know what I mean / what I want to express.

I feel, but it raises the question of whether complexity requires a sentient force behind it.

Yes, that's a hard question. But then also comes the issue how one understand term "God".

Is "God" a sentient force or something even more abstract ???

I guess we all find out when we die. Place your bets in the meantime. Life really is one big gamble.

That would be the best answer. There is no reason to waste time on pointless disputes between atheists and believers, etc.

==================================

It would be like saying that what you can do on a PC is determined solely by its hardware, without any regard to what software is installed on it.

This is not a perfect comparison.

In world of computers you can install same or similar software on two PCs consisting of different kinds of hardware.

In real life you can't force a bacteria (who has different genes = different software) to look and work / behave (= have same hardware) like human.

So genes actually are closer to "software" (if we have to stick to this unfortunate comparison), but determine also "hardware".