Potentially Big News On The Human Evolution Front

[Whateverist]

And nary a word about Adam and fucking Eve!

Maybe that should be Adam and En-Lai.

[Edwardo Piet]

But I still think it's unlikely that the first thing to ever have existed just popped into existence from nothing. Hence my belief in something that is not bound by the laws of nature.

This doesn't follow though.

God doesn't need an explanation but existence itself must? That's special pleading at its finest.

The way I see it existence itself has always existed, whatever initially existed before the big bang developed into the big bang when time began. No god required. I mean, in a way there are no separate things and everything is one interconnected entity which is existence itself and we make the divisions ourselves when we interpret reality and conceptualize it into separate entities.

It's frustrating when so many theists use the "Something can't come from nothing" argument when if you press them further they basically elaborate with something akin to "Oh except God of course". I agree that something can't come from nothing. Something has always existed but God is completely unnecessary.

So God created the first thing, except himself, which just goes to show he wasn't required, and then he sat back and did nothing for the next 13.8 billion years?

[Whateverist]

This is very interesting to me because I'm already aware that, since the human genome was mapped, at least if you trace most people's DNA all the way back the descent is African. I wonder which peoples would trace back to elsewhere.

Young earth Christers can trace their ancestry all the way back from spider monkeys to tube worms living deep under the ocean near super heated vents in the earth's crust.

---

It's reasonable to believe things evolved to be what they are currently, and we have evidence of it. But I still think it's unlikely that the first thing to ever have existed just popped into existence from nothing. Hence my belief in something that is not bound by the laws of nature. This opens up the possibility that the first thing to ever have existed isnt bound by time, didn't need an origin for which it came from, and could be infinite/always have existed.

What about a virus, a simple prion or just a long complex building block molecule like a carbohydrate or lipid? Could you imagine those things just distilling from astronomical events .. initiated by God himself, of course.

[Catholic_Lady]

[quote='Brian37' pid='1660178' dateline='1511194781']

I cannot understand how you can accept modern science rightfully, but still think an old book of mythology explains anything in modern terms. I feel the same way when Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists try to square modern science with old writings too. 

1. The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins
2. God, The Failed Hypothesis, Victor Stenger
3. The New Atheism, Victor Stenger

I was an atheist long before I read those books, but because of the science in them, the combo of those three gave me a much more solid picture of where our species evolution, including our universal traits come from, our empathy, our cruelty, but especially our false perceptions. 

If you accept the science then you should not cherry pick what it says when it conflicts with your own wishes. 

We are an outcome of natural processes, like all other life, we are not a product made by an invisible magical factory owner.

This opens up the possibility that the first thing to ever have existed isnt bound by time, didn't need an origin for which it came from, and could be infinite/always have existed.

And why couldn't that just be the cosmos?  if you're willing to accept that a god could have those attributes, why couldn't our universe have them?  The problem begins when we start asserting other things on top of those qualities, such as agency, will, desires, a plan, and an ability to interact with existence while remaining physically undetectable.

My bold.

Where would the cosmos have come from though?

In the natural, physical world, things have an origin. There is no evidence that anything can materialize out of nothing, only evidence to the contrary.

But if we consider the possibility of something beyond the natural, physical world, it opens up a possibility that there may be something that might not be bound by these laws of nature. I find that more likely.

[Brian37]

And why couldn't that just be the cosmos?  if you're willing to accept that a god could have those attributes, why couldn't our universe have them?  The problem begins when we start asserting other things on top of those qualities, such as agency, will, desires, a plan, and an ability to interact with existence while remaining physically undetectable.

My bold.

Where would the cosmos have come from though?

In the natural, physical world, things have an origin. There is no evidence that anything can materialize out of nothing, only evidence to the contrary.

But if we consider the possibility of something beyond the natural, physical world, it opens up a possibility that there may be something that might not be bound by these laws of nature. I find that more likely.

Still missing the point.

You cant be hypocritical and claim God didn't have a cause if you are going to claim everything has a cause.

Otherwise the magical claim that Thor is the cause of lightening would be valid. Otherwise the ocean God Poseidon would be a valid gap answer to explain the cause of hurricanes would be valid.


I'd say the cause of belief of God/s/god/s/deities and all supernatural isn't as complicated as those things being real. I would say humans imagination and ignorance is the cause of why humans believe fantastic claims.


I'd say the easier answer as to why humans believe in the super natural, isn't that those are valid claims, but because those claims are vastly handed down to them by their parents prior to being able to think critically.

But, again, if you are going to claim God doesn't need a cause, it would seem a far easier to say the same about the universe not needing one.

Ocham's Razor is a cornerstone of modern scientific method. It basically says not to ad extra baggage to a problem in order to figure out a solution to that problem.

Once you insert a super natural cognition in as a starting point you are starting with a complex presupposition. In real science, you fuck up your data and formula from the start by assuming extra crap.

I am sure you don't assume Poseidon in as the cause of hurricanes. But there were humans in antiquity who literally believed in an ocean God who had super natural powers and the super natural cognition to control the seas.

I'd say you simply fell for a story long ago with simply a different flavor and history.

[Amarok]

That assumes the cosmos  must come from something.And even if it needs to their is no need for the supernatural . And your whole statement is a possibler fallacy not to mention an argument from ignorance.

[brewer]

Sigh, Aroura was right. Didn't take long to go from evolve to devolve.

[Brian37]

That assumes the cosmos  must come from something.And even if it needs to their is no need for the supernatural . And your whole statement is a possibler fallacy not to mention an argument from ignorance.

Theist far to often confuse a magical cognition as being the argument for infinity. 

It is a mistake to assume on their part that that is what modern science is arguing either way. 

The issue isn't for modern scientists a cognition. Hawking said "A God is not required".

The only answer scientists at his level and that of Krauss isn't something vs nothing or nothing vs something, that part everyone is still trying to figure out. BUT what scientists at their level are saying is a magical super cognition is not required.

Me personally, the more I read science, I have no problem with infinity, or nothing. I see it as an cycle, from off to on to off to on and back and forth, much like the seasons on our planet change over and over. What I don't see as needed is a super cognition as a starting point.

Krauss has famously said "nothing is unstable'. In laypersons terms, a state of "off" cannot be forever. But neither can the state of "on".

So to me, the fluctuation between off and on is infinite. But I see no cognition being a requirement for that to happen. I only see cognition as local, small, temporary and finite. Much like acorns don't grow to become tree gods.

Up and down and on and off can happen over and over, but neither have to have a magical cause because they are just fluctuations between states.

[Amarok]

That assumes the cosmos  must come from something.And even if it needs to their is no need for the supernatural . And your whole statement is a possibler fallacy not to mention an argument from ignorance.

Theist far to often confuse a magical cognition as being the argument for infinity. 

It is a mistake to assume on their part that that is what modern science is arguing either way. 

The issue isn't for modern scientists a cognition. Hawking said "A God is not required".

The only answer scientists at his level and that of Krauss isn't something vs nothing or nothing vs something, that part everyone is still trying to figure out. BUT what scientists at their level are saying is a magical super cognition is not required.

Me personally, the more I read science, I have no problem with infinity, or nothing. I see it as an cycle, from off to on to off to on and back and forth, much like the seasons on our planet change over and over. What I don't see as needed is a super cognition as a starting point.

Krauss has famously said "nothing is unstable'. In laypersons terms, a state of "off" cannot be forever. But neither can the state of "on".

So to me, the fluctuation between off and on is infinite. But I see no cognition being a requirement for that to happen. I only see cognition as local, small, temporary and finite. Much like acorns don't grow to become tree gods.

Up and down and on and off can happen over and over, but neither have to have a magical cause because they are just fluctuations between states.

Considering neither nothing or infinite are only asserted to be impossible by the cult of western theology . I agree

[Brian37]

Theist far to often confuse a magical cognition as being the argument for infinity. 

It is a mistake to assume on their part that that is what modern science is arguing either way. 

The issue isn't for modern scientists a cognition. Hawking said "A God is not required".

The only answer scientists at his level and that of Krauss isn't something vs nothing or nothing vs something, that part everyone is still trying to figure out. BUT what scientists at their level are saying is a magical super cognition is not required.

Me personally, the more I read science, I have no problem with infinity, or nothing. I see it as an cycle, from off to on to off to on and back and forth, much like the seasons on our planet change over and over. What I don't see as needed is a super cognition as a starting point.

Krauss has famously said "nothing is unstable'. In laypersons terms, a state of "off" cannot be forever. But neither can the state of "on".

So to me, the fluctuation between off and on is infinite. But I see no cognition being a requirement for that to happen. I only see cognition as local, small, temporary and finite. Much like acorns don't grow to become tree gods.

Up and down and on and off can happen over and over, but neither have to have a magical cause because they are just fluctuations between states.

Considering neither nothing or infinite are only asserted to be impossible by the cult of western theology . I agree

Um no, the idea of a magical forever isn't strictly a western concept.

Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism are full of their own mythology and superstitions. It is a mistake to assume the religions of Abraham have a patent on gap answers.

Eastern Asian religions also have their ideas of pre and post life, just like the Mayans did.

I see our species history worldwide the same way. I see all religions as making the same mistake at the core. The idea that "all this" is some patent created, owned or invented by any single one. All of them claim morality, all of them see their flavors as good. Some depending on individual or sect try to water it down from the word "religion" to the word "philosophy".

I see the universe as far older. I accept it does not give on shit about me or my fellow humans. I hate that far too many, when you say that, think I am being negative. It to me, is the same as knowing a good movie ends, or a good music concert, or a sporting event.

You don't need a magic hero or a religious club to accept that this is it.

Concepts of spirit worship in Asia and even with Natives in the Americas replaces central God/god/s sure, but they still have concepts of evil spirits and worship of ancestors, and even claims of reincarnation and karma, which I find to be just as superfluous. 

Again, there were no written religions of any label 200,000 years ago, much less 4 billion years ago, much less 13.8 billion years ago.

Infinite nor finite conflict to me, when you take magic and super heros out of it. I see nature and the universe as being a fluctuation between off and on. The off and on can be finite, the on can be finite, but the fluctuation between the two states can be infinite. 

What is not required for either is a human like comic book super hero with magical super powers.