Your religious views and positions on matters such as God and the meaning of life?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Sumac

There is no "why".
Your existence or existence of any other people have no any reason or meaning whatsoever. You exist just to procreate.
As for any other reasons - you choose them for yourself.

As for existence of life - it's just because systems become more complicated. It's natural order of things. A system in itself, with no reason or start.

So... how do you explain your own uniqueness in that system, which is all made up of the same materials, atoms, etc, as every other living thing in existance? How do you explain why or how you are different from a dog or an ameoba? Both exist solely to procrete, by your own expressed belief. Yet (as far as we know) they do not have a higher conciousness to even contemplate the meaning- or lack of same- of their own existance as we do. Can you explain that difference?

[Leonardo_thebest]

All mammals have consciousness or a sense of self to varying degrees.

http://neurosciencenews.com/self-awa...ychology-3240/

TLDR: The mirror test is not sufficient, and possibly an anthropocentric test.

Animals that HAVE passed the Mirror test, according to this article:

Humans
Great Apes (gorillas excluded),
One Asian Elephant,
Dolphins,
Eurasian magpies,
Some ants.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

So... how do you explain your own uniqueness in that system, which is all made up of the same materials, atoms, etc, as every other living thing in existance? How do you explain why or how you are different from a dog or an ameoba? Both exist solely to procrete, by your own expressed belief. Yet (as far as we know) they do not have a higher conciousness to even contemplate the meaning- or lack of same- of their own existance as we do. Can you explain that difference?

I do not share the same views as Sumac but I think that from his position, our consciousness is just the sum of our bio-chemical neural activity and there is nothing special or transcendent about it (although we debated this to length when Commenter 42 was here so I think I might sit this one out

[Leonardo_thebest]

Sumac is wrong about "complexity". The second law of thermodynamics is still the second law of thermodynamics, but entropy is only part of the story.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

All mammals have consciousness or a sense of self to varying degrees.

http://neurosciencenews.com/self-awa...ychology-3240/

TLDR: The mirror test is not sufficient, and possibly an anthropocentric test.

Animals that HAVE passed the Mirror test, according to this article:

Humans
Great Apes (gorillas excluded),
One Asian Elephant,
Dolphins,
Eurasian magpies,
Some ants.

Yes I'm aware of such studies- Nat Geo did an entire issue on animal intelligence and emotions last year. However, I am referring to higher levels of contemplation and existential thought. We know apes and cetacians have reasoning somewhat somilar to our own, and dolphins apparently even have personal "name" signals to identify each other, but do they have their own theology? This ability to imagine possibilities beyond the physical is what I mean. How do we explain how or why we have this capability and other animals (again, as far as we know) do not? There are no dolphin temples to gods, or ape cathedrals or holy shrines, so why do humans alone create such things? This is something science can't explain. If there is no meaning to existance, why do we have the ability to believe there COULD be?

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

I do not share the same views as Sumac but I think that from his position, our consciousness is just the sum of our bio-chemical neural activity and there is nothing special or transcendent about it (although we debated this to length when Commenter 42 was here so I think I might sit this one out

If this were true we would have no individuality, as there would be no need dor it. Yet even ants seem to have identities, so that is already a flawed theory. Our thoughts may be made of electrical energy, but it is very different in nature from the energy of a lightning bolt! Because as far as I'm aware, lightning doesn't dream....

[FredWolfLeonardo]

I remember being at a party with family friends once, where there was a family friend of ours who was openly atheist despite most of the people at the event being religious conservatives.

We were discussing these topics and the atheist person argued that one day, we should be able to theoretically create robots with a consciousness like that of humans or even better since in his worldview, free will did not exist and our thoughts are nothing more than neurochemical patterns. He said, if we can create cars with superior speed to us, and machines with superior strength to humans, why shouldn't we be able to one day create robots with a consciousness better than ours?

Anyone who knows me, knows I agree with a grand total of zero of those arguements, but it does make us think: how far are we willing to go and try create something seen as increatable for millenia by our ancestors?

I'd say its likely that human effort in this area is at an all time high and will continue increasing in the forseeable future, considering that modern mainstream science, especially psychiatry, neuroscience and the likes, take a hardline physicalist approach and that more and more people are open to the idea of digital consciousness.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

So... how do you explain your own uniqueness in that system, which is all made up of the same materials, atoms, etc, as every other living thing in existance? How do you explain why or how you are different from a dog or an ameoba? Both exist solely to procrete, by your own expressed belief. Yet (as far as we know) they do not have a higher conciousness to even contemplate the meaning- or lack of same- of their own existance as we do. Can you explain that difference?

Our intellect is developed enough so we can "comprehend" ourselves, for the lack of better term.
That is all.

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

I do not share the same views as Sumac but I think that from his position, our consciousness is just the sum of our bio-chemical neural activity and there is nothing special or transcendent about it (although we debated this to length when Commenter 42 was here so I think I might sit this one out

Precisely.
There is nothing special.

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

Sumac is wrong about "complexity". The second law of thermodynamics is still the second law of thermodynamics, but entropy is only part of the story.

What are you even talking about?

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

How do we explain how or why we have this capability and other animals (again, as far as we know) do not? There are no dolphin temples to gods, or ape cathedrals or holy shrines, so why do humans alone create such things? This is something science can't explain. If there is no meaning to existance, why do we have the ability to believe there COULD be?

Other species are not developed enough to has their own religions.

For development of religions you need species that have a robust imagination and high intellect (higher than that of apes or dolphins). And those species should have a conscious fear of death, aside from instinctual, since fear of death and curiosity / imagination are the foundations of any system of beliefs.

Is is very strange that you can't understand this and that you believe that science can't explain it. But what I can expect from someone who is willing to debate the very foundation of life?

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

If this were true we would have no individuality, as there would be no need dor it. Yet even ants seem to have identities, so that is already a flawed theory. Our thoughts may be made of electrical energy, but it is very different in nature from the energy of a lightning bolt! Because as far as I'm aware, lightning doesn't dream....

You state it like it's a fact. Which is not the case. There is nothing flawed about this theory.
Why do you think that there would be "no use" for individuality, if this impulse exists in an autonomous living being?

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

Anyone who knows me, knows I agree with a grand total of zero of those arguements, but it does make us think: how far are we willing to go and try create something seen as increatable for millenia by our ancestors?

Humans are willing to go as far as possible, until they will be either destroyed or scared enough to understand that it is time to stop.
Curiosity of humanity is endless. For better or worse.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Yes I'm aware of such studies- Nat Geo did an entire issue on animal intelligence and emotions last year. However, I am referring to higher levels of contemplation and existential thought. We know apes and cetacians have reasoning somewhat somilar to our own, and dolphins apparently even have personal "name" signals to identify each other, but do they have their own theology? This ability to imagine possibilities beyond the physical is what I mean. How do we explain how or why we have this capability and other animals (again, as far as we know) do not? There are no dolphin temples to gods, or ape cathedrals or holy shrines, so why do humans alone create such things? This is something science can't explain. If there is no meaning to existance, why do we have the ability to believe there COULD be?


If this were true we would have no individuality, as there would be no need dor it. Yet even ants seem to have identities, so that is already a flawed theory. Our thoughts may be made of electrical energy, but it is very different in nature from the energy of a lightning bolt! Because as far as I'm aware, lightning doesn't dream....

To the first question, think about what you're asking. Just like the mirror test, it relies on our own ideas around what we think constitutes consciousness, which was previously flawed. The question you might ask is why do Humans think there's a mystical component to life, while other animals (as far as we know) don't. if all creatures had an equal vote at the table, it's the Humans who would be the odd ones out.

The lightning bolt argument is a bit like asking why proteins don't run marathons. They do, in the proper formation, as muscle tissue, and even then, it requires a host body to be part of the race. Seratonin on its own doesn't feel, but the chemical reaction it causes in stem cells can generate the nerves that react to stimuli.

To Sumac: Entropy dear. have a google, and we can talk about it.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

To Sumac: Entropy dear. have a google, and we can talk about it.

I now what entropy is, sugar, just what it has to do with intellect, aside from very theoretical hypothesis?

[Leonardo_thebest]

You: As for existence of life - it's just because systems become more complicated. It's natural order of things. A system in itself, with no reason or start.

That's incorrect. The natural order of things is entropy, not growing complexity. This is the central argument biblical scholars use when arguing the existence of God.

The Natural order is a decrease in complexity, not an increase. Google it, you will see.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

You: As for existence of life - it's just because systems become more complicated. It's natural order of things. A system in itself, with no reason or start.

That's incorrect. The natural order of things is entropy, not growing complexity. This is the central argument biblical scholars use when arguing the existence of God.

The Natural order is a decrease in complexity, not an increase. Google it, you will see.

I think Sumac was referring to an open system like earth rather than the overall isolated system that the universe is

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

You: As for existence of life - it's just because systems become more complicated. It's natural order of things. A system in itself, with no reason or start.

That's incorrect. The natural order of things is entropy, not growing complexity. This is the central argument biblical scholars use when arguing the existence of God.

The Natural order is a decrease in complexity, not an increase. Google it, you will see.

Then how come humans are more complex than microbes?
Going by your logic it should be vice-versa.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Not my logic man, that would be well, Science. Fascinating subject.
Also, Google is a great resource.

To FredwolfLeonardo
Don't think so:

Originally Posted by Sumac

Then how come humans are more complex than microbes?
Going by your logic it should be vice-versa.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

Not my logic man, that would be well, Science. Fascinating subject.
Also, Google is a great resource.

To FredwolfLeonardo
Don't think so:

I recommend you to remember for the future, that if you want to prove something you should either provide even basic logical foundation or links. If you can't do either, due to your arrogance, laziness or pain in the little toe - it's not my problem. It's not my duty to prove your point of view for you.

For now, I will consider you a useless babbler, which is not all surprising considering you other laughable "beliefs".

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Just the fact that we are here and alive is completely bonkers when you focus on it. It's easy to wonder "what the hell is even going on, right now?". So with that, I try and keep a pretty open mind.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Billions of years ago, life has appeared in the substrate of Earth....yada, yada, yada....humans.

I think it a little more complex than that

I with AquaParade It crazy how complex, yet proficient our bodies are and amazing life is around us. An example would be everyday hearing or cell reciprocation. I have to studies these as apart of my major. Hearing you should be basically impossible, because of all the bombardment of sound our ears pick up, but yet our brains are able to cypher through all the sine waves to form and pull out meaningful speech and hearing.

This is why I believe Christianity via Creative design.

Lets try to remember to be respectful of everyone's opinion

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Redeemer

I think it a little more complex than that

Obviously it is more complex, I just provided a brief description.

As for "proficiency of our bodies", lol, no.
Our bodies are incredibly fragile and can break down at random. Add to it unforeseen mutations.

That aside, I don't see any reason to believe in some kind of "creator". Especially since there is no prove.

Also, do your "belief" mean that you don't believe in evolution?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Despite me being a creationist, I do not believe that the arguement from perfect design is a good one because

A) From a purely scientific point of view, our bodies are flawed in the sense that we are prone to disease and death, and as Sumac said: our bodies are relatively fragile.

B) The Bible itself affirms that creation is flawed in the modern day and age after the fall at the Garden of Eden which resulted in creation being prone to disease and death.

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Obviously it is more complex, I just provided a brief description.

As for "proficiency of our bodies", lol, no.
Our bodies are incredibly fragile and can break down at random. Add to it unforeseen mutations.

That aside, I don't see any reason to believe in some kind of "creator". Especially since there is no prove.

Also, do your "belief" mean that you don't believe in evolution?

Wasn't trying to be dismissive, I just thought it was funny how small and insignificant you made the entire world

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But I do understand your logic and thats why we call it faith. You always have to have faith in any religion or world view. As far as evolution I believe in micro-evolution/adaptation, but not macro-evolution.

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

Despite me being a creationist, I do not believe that the arguement from perfect design is a good one because

A) From a purely scientific point of view, our bodies are flawed in the sense that we are prone to disease and death, and as Sumac said: our bodies are relatively fragile.

B) The Bible itself affirms that creation is flawed in the modern day and age after the fall at the Garden of Eden which resulted in creation being prone to disease and death.

You guys are right we are flawed and not perfect, but our bodies can self heal, adapt, we do fight off disease and adapt to diseases daily. But we can die from very simple things. I find the human body to be amazing.

Also FredWolf I am a little confused by your statement of the Bible (2 hours of sleep) But I think I agree????? The fall of man made the world flawed and susceptible to to death???? then yes

[ProphetofGanja]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Just the fact that we are here and alive is completely bonkers when you focus on it. It's easy to wonder "what the hell is even going on, right now?". So with that, I try and keep a pretty open mind.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Nothing crazy about it.
Billions of years ago, life has appeared in the substrate of Earth....yada, yada, yada....humans.

I feel like these are just two different ways of viewing things, like a glass half empty or half full kind of deal. When you think about the universe as a whole you either focus on all the mysteries we don't yet understand or you think about how much we've learned about how our reality is ordered and structured. I think this is just one of those things where you either fall into one category or the other.

Originally Posted by TurtleWA

The meaning of life is TMNT. The forum is my church.

You know I really think this is pretty much the case for a lot of people. If not TMNT, then other comic book properties; they literally worship them. I'm sure somebody could write a whole book on how modern-day superheroes are just the updated versions of the mythic archetypes of long ago, changed to fit the times (apparently somebody tried but failed, according to the review)

Originally Posted by Redeemer

As far as evolution I believe in micro-evolution/adaptation, but not macro-evolution.

Could you explain how you reconcile the two or rather your belief that there is only the one? I find it hard to draw a line separating them



As far as what I believe about the existence of god or the meaning of life, I'm not sure about most things. I think it is beyond the current level of our technology to even begin to gain some of the answers to these questions through science. They're not entirely scientific questions.

What I think is most likely is that all consciousness is one entity. I think of it like water; it can be in many different places at once, in an unlimited variety of vessels, but wherever it is it's always water and it's always part of the total sum of water on Earth, which, barring a negligible amount of in/out is very constant. I think that this universal consciousness exists somewhere outside of physical spacetime. I think that what we are really referring to when we ponder the nature of divinity is this universal consciousness. I don't believe that there is a god, I believe that we are god. Namaste (the divinity in me recognizes the divinity in you)



So what is the meaning of life? Beings are born into our reality and a portion of the universal consciousness is imbued into the living creature, so that it can experience the physical world. There is no distinction between living creatures, they all receive a part of the same soul. The amount of soul that can be held however varies from vessel to vessel. This act of a portion of the universal consciousness being poured into different vessels, to be poured back into the ocean of the whole either happens forever because time is infinite or at some point it will end because time is finite; I'm not sure which. In either case, the point is just to ride the ride as many times as you can.



This site explains one version of this theory "The Egg" by Andy Weir (although there is an additional bit of speculation about what the point of all this could be)




So I just believe that we're all really part of the same thing. I think there are some entities that exist either in other dimensions or on other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, meaning we can't perceive them with our usual senses. Sometimes they manifest themselves as what we call ghosts or extradimensional entities (like they say on Ghost Hunters). Sometimes I think ghosts are just a psychic impression left on a place as a result of a traumatic event.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I recommend you to remember for the future, that if you want to prove something you should either provide even basic logical foundation or links. If you can't do either, due to your arrogance, laziness or pain in the little toe - it's not my problem. It's not my duty to prove your point of view for you.

For now, I will consider you a useless babbler, which is not all surprising considering you other laughable "beliefs".

I still don't understand what you're arguing with me about. You're not being clear. I don't believe in God, any more than you do. We know there are more than two genders, as gender isn't as binary as we once thought. It's not the norm, if by norm you mean percentages of a population, but that doesn't mean it isn't normal, in that it's a biological possibility that doesn't indicate "crazy" as you put it. So we don't agree there. Fine, but it's been proven otherwise. Maybe you think the Earth is flat too? I don't know, but I wouldn't think the onus is on me to prove otherwise at this point in history.

Also, when you start including citations in your posts, referencing authors and studies, I'll do the same.