Not a God, a creator.

[Tricky]

LOL. Really? How do you know this? Were you around before the beginning of the universe?

I'll retract this statement. I got the noun order wrong. LCL said the big bang set the forces inot (sic) motion, not the reverse. My mistake.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Bacteria can eat you from the inside out. Humans can't do that.

Humans understand what is meant by "inside." But I am not arguing "human," I have been saying that what they represent could have been filled by anything. What they represent is consciousness added to intelligence. Now artificial forms of matter, energy, and information can be added to the mix.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

LOL. Really? How do you know this? Were you around before the beginning of the universe?

No. I can see the results, don't you?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No. I can see the results, don't you?

Sorry, I didn't see your reply.

 

[D'rok]

Humans understand what is meant by "inside." But I am not arguing "human," I have been saying that what they represent could have been filled by anything. What they represent is consciousness added to intelligence. Now artificial forms of matter, energy, and information can be added to the mix.

OK, I'm going to concede a little ground here. I think it's reasonable to suggest that the human capacity for artificial modification of the environment could have some sort of effect on natural selection. But I think you are taking this and stretching it to the breaking point and beyond.

 

[cyborg]

Why is it when humans modify the environment it's artificial and when bacterial do it is natural?

(No need for an answer, it is rhetorical: there is no practical difference in the differing use of terminology other than to make it clear that it is humans engaging in the action).

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well, that is, of course correct. I have sometimes had discussions with deists (I will assume you are basically a deist), and some of them have been going down that path as well.

It turns out that if you start defining God based on the observable universe, you end up with a definition that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from atheism.

Just about. An atheist with a "more" positive outlook.

Basically you end up with a definition like this:

God = The unverse + X

Where X is some hypothetical and unobservable extra.
However, this hypothetical and unobservable extra is unnecessary for explaining the universe. All it serves is to provide a distinction between the atheist and the deist, the difference beingthat the deist assumes it exists.

Hans

I think Deist have to believe in a God/creator. If so, that is not going to work for me. I am perfectly happy with a "patterned process that got lucky."

 

[D'rok]

Why is it when humans modify the environment it's artificial and when bacterial do it is natural?

(No need for an answer, it is rhetorical: there is no practical difference in the differing use of terminology other than to make it clear that it is humans engaging in the action).

Good point. I typed before I thought.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Why is it when humans modify the environment it's artificial and when bacterial do it is natural?

(No need for an answer, it is rhetorical: there is no practical difference in the differing use of terminology other than to make it clear that it is humans engaging in the action).

Fine with me. Humans are acting as part of the natural process when they manipulate matter, energy, and information.

 

[Belz...]

That would be anthropomorphism not anthropocentrism

Right, right.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not trying to argue superiority, everything plays a part. But, if humans are a part of the process, their consciousness and intelligence came out of it

Do you have a point ?

, and added another lever to it.

I assume you mean "level". Why would intelligence be another level and, say, strength, not ?

The four forces created the universe

Actually, it's the other way around. But you've been told this already. Yet another example that you don't learn.

Germs have wills?

To live.

Sorry, Light. Germs don't have brains. They don't have wills.

Humans understand what is meant by "inside."

That's nice on a philosophical level, but in cold hard reality it means nothing.

No. I can see the results, don't you?

Just because you can see a painting doesn't mean you can tell which brush was used.

 

[Belz...]

Why is it when humans modify the environment it's artificial and when bacterial do it is natural?

I've had the same thought. Everything is natural, including our "artificial" stuff. So why do people rant against things "artificial" as though they somehow don't fit ?

 

[cyborg]

I've had the same thought. Everything is natural, including our "artificial" stuff. So why do people rant against things "artificial" as though they somehow don't fit ?

Well that would be anthropocentrism.

And of course the idea that certain things should and shouldn't be is a fallacy.

Things are.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Do you have a point ?

They are part of the process. They are its natural, logical outcome, no matter what body they wear.

I assume you mean "level". Why would intelligence be another level and, say, strength, not ?

Like the "smart bomb," or even the atomic bomb, intelligence lifts heavier loads than strength. It allows for the use of several types of "strengths" all at once, to fit any situation.

Actually, it's the other way around. But you've been told this already. Yet another example that you don't learn.

The four forces resulted from the "big bang," and they shaped the universe.

Sorry, Light. Germs don't have brains. They don't have wills.

Give me a break. What are you "braincentric?" Many forms of life want and need without them.

That's nice on a philosophical level, but in cold hard reality it means nothing.

It allows those who know enough to understand the concept, a wider range of options.

Just because you can see a painting doesn't mean you can tell which brush was used.

Of the four brushes, the one most used in reference to life is...

 

[arthwollipot]

Give me a break. What are you "braincentric?" Many forms of life want and need without them.

Um, nothing really to say here, except to point out the absurdity of this statement.

 

[wollery]

Um, nothing really to say here, except to point out the absurdity of this statement.

A simple "nope" would have sufficed.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, that is, of course correct. I have sometimes had discussions with deists (I will assume you are basically a deist), and some of them have been going down that path as well.

It turns out that if you start defining God based on the observable universe, you end up with a definition that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from atheism.

Just about. An atheist with a "more" positive outlook.

I don't know why believers always assume that atheists don't have a positive outlook.

Basically you end up with a definition like this:

God = The unverse + X

Where X is some hypothetical and unobservable extra.
However, this hypothetical and unobservable extra is unnecessary for explaining the universe. All it serves is to provide a distinction between the atheist and the deist, the difference beingthat the deist assumes it exists.

Hans

I think Deist have to believe in a God/creator. If so, that is not going to work for me. I am perfectly happy with a "patterned process that got lucky."

Yes. As I say, if you fit your God/Creator completely into the observable universe, your definition becomes indistinguishable from materialism. Food for thought, ehh?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

They are part of the process. They are its natural, logical outcome, no matter what body they wear.

Materialism.

Like the "smart bomb," or even the atomic bomb, intelligence lifts heavier loads than strength. It allows for the use of several types of "strengths" all at once, to fit any situation.

Materialism.

The four forces resulted from the "big bang," and they shaped the universe.

Materialism.

Give me a break. What are you "braincentric?" Many forms of life want and need without them.

Not under the usual definition of "want". Need is something different. You don't even have to be a life form to need.

It allows those who know enough to understand the concept, a wider range of options.

Not really. It allows you more room for speculation, but even that is illusory. I can speculate as much as you, the difference is that I am aware that it is only speculation, which ultimately leaves me with more options than thou.

Hans

 

[Belz...]

Like the "smart bomb," or even the atomic bomb, intelligence lifts heavier loads than strength. It allows for the use of several types of "strengths" all at once, to fit any situation.

That doesn't answer my question : Why would intelligence be another level and, say, strength, not ?

The four forces resulted from the "big bang," and they shaped the universe.

That's a little better.

Give me a break. What are you "braincentric?" Many forms of life want and need without them.

Not without a central nervous system they don't.

Because they have tendencies does not mean that they have will. I'd suggest you read up on the word "will", but I know you're not going to retain that, anyway.

It allows those who know enough to understand the concept, a wider range of options.

But it doesn't change squat about reality.

Of the four brushes, the one most used in reference to life is...

And there we have it. We've come full circle, light. After a few thousand posts trying to show you wrong, you've come right back to the OP of your first thread, elegantly proving my point about you not learning.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I don't know why believers always assume that atheists don't have a positive outlook.

Sorry, I think it might have something to do with the unemotional logic thing.

Yes. As I say, if you fit your God/Creator completely into the observable universe, your definition becomes indistinguishable from materialism. Food for thought, ehh?

I'm talking about the capability, and possibilities, that intelligence/consciousness has brought to the process.

Materialism.

I'm talking about the influence energy has on the material world.

Not under the usual definition of "want". Need is something different. You don't even have to be a life form to need.

Water needs oxygen and hydrogen?

Not really. It allows you more room for speculation, but even that is illusory. I can speculate as much as you, the difference is that I am aware that it is only speculation, which ultimately leaves me with more options than thou.

Fact has an advantage over speculation, but it can also be limited by what is thought to be fact.