An unorthodox belief in God.

[ThePinsir]

Oh no, I believe in evolution and agree with it, just a bit differently. We can bypass evolution and get into atheism as a proof of God. I do not believe atheism would exist without god, I really don't. One poster here said it pre existed theism, and a mind devoid of awareness of god, is thus atheist. I agree with that, primordial man was atheist, and I cannot see then theism arising out of a world of atheism.

Why would it?
It had to be part of a plan of god to have theism and atheism.

" I do not believe atheism would exist without god, I really don't."

Oh? Why not?

" I cannot see then theism arising out of a world of atheism."

I can, quite simply actually. Theism, I'd assert, arises out of two or three things: 1) a fear of death 2) a need to explain unknown events/things (like your entire thread) 3) a means of controlling people

There may be more, and I certainly don't want to present any sort of a false dichotomy. But come one, bro (or sis, idk lol). Humans have invented like 40,000 gods - and you can't see how theism can arise on its own?

[mickiel]

The evidence I like using is " Civilization", excuse me for using caps again, a habit. I think some 30-50,00 years ago, god created adam, the first human he gave consciousness. Knowing that is not accepted here, lets just say whenever civilization began to emerge. I think it emerged BECAUSE god gave those humans consciousness. He did not give it fully to primordial humans.

The evidence fidel, is the obvious change in humanity, the curve it took. When primordial man basically died out after the ice age and the dawn of adam, its as if we took a dramatic left turn and exploded into a totally new direction; now we were thinking! And I think civilization is one of the evidence for consciousness, and again god.

But you then need to clearly define both where we, as a homonid species, began 'thinking' and subsequently where that 'thinking' culminated in the formation of civilisation.

You also need to define what you mean by 'civilisation'. Do you mean social, cohesive groups? Do you mean buildings? Do you mean cities?

The issue you have is that we have large reams of evidence to suggest that homo sapiens were not unique both in their ability to 'think' or their ability to form cohesive societal groups. Indeed, we don't even have to look into antiquity to garner evidence of this. Great apes today reveal to us their capability to 'think'; to assess an obstacle in front of them and reassess their behaviour and their actions to overcome or adapt.

And I think a further elucidation of 'consciousness' would be helpful here because, as above, if it is not defined coherently it's liable to fall apart at the slightest rebuttal.

I think reference to the ice age equating to the 'obvious turning point' may be a non sequitur. I can see evidence of adaption to a new environment, but I can't see evidence of it being a proverbial 'light bulb' moment where homo sapiens went from mindless, drooling savages (arguable on this point even but you get my point) to scholars, builders and artists.

I appreciate you're simply bounding your thoughts of us. However, if we are to have a debate on origin, saying 'I think' sort of debilitates your thesis if you then proceed to say 'This definitely happened'.

Alright then, no more saying " I think", no more using Caps, if anyone else has things they want me to do and stop doing, just let me know. This definitely happened; these are historical events that happened to prove consciousness led to civilization;

transportation
education
science
religion
language
math
astrology
agriculture
war
archaeology
All this and more are signs of a definite curve in now conscious man, that primordial did not have in our capacity.

Why? Again points to a god.

[JesusHChrist]

What selected evolution and natural selection?

You're thinking about it incorrectly, or more indelicately, backasswards.

Think of rain falling, filling a hole in the ground. The puddle forms to fit the shape of the hole in the ground. Isn't amazing the hole fits the shape of the puddle *exactly*! Well, not really.

In this example, the shape of the hole is akin to our environment -- the earth, sun, etc. Life (the puddle) forms to fit the environment. The environment exists first, lifeforms adapt to fit the environment.

It is as simple as that.

As for Adam and Eve existing 50,000 years ago -- none of that hogwash fits with reality. We know from genetic studies there were never less than a few thousand humans in existence. We also know the source man and source woman came from two different geographic regions (and probably different time periods) in Africa. The other lines died out.

There was no Adam. No Eve. No original sin. No need for Jesus. No need for Christianity.

Genetics is a bitch.

[mickiel]

Oh no, I believe in evolution and agree with it, just a bit differently. We can bypass evolution and get into atheism as a proof of God. I do not believe atheism would exist without god, I really don't. One poster here said it pre existed theism, and a mind devoid of awareness of god, is thus atheist. I agree with that, primordial man was atheist, and I cannot see then theism arising out of a world of atheism.

Why would it?
It had to be part of a plan of god to have theism and atheism.

" I do not believe atheism would exist without god, I really don't."

Oh? Why not?

" I cannot see then theism arising out of a world of atheism."

I can, quite simply actually. Theism, I'd assert, arises out of two or three things: 1) a fear of death 2) a need to explain unknown events/things (like your entire thread) 3) a means of controlling people

There may be more, and I certainly don't want to present any sort of a false dichotomy. But come one, bro (or sis, idk lol). Humans have invented like 40,000 gods - and you can't see how theism can arise on its own?

No, I can't see it. Minds completely unconscious of a god or gods, why and how would consciousness of a god emerge?

Well on second thought, if you accept that consciousness could emerge from absolute nothing, then I understand you're rationale.

---

What selected evolution and natural selection?

You're thinking about it incorrectly, or more indelicately, backasswards.

Think of rain falling, filling a hole in the ground. The puddle forms to fit the shape of the hole in the ground. Isn't amazing the hole fits the shape of the puddle *exactly*! Well, not really.

In this example, the shape of the hole is akin to our environment -- the earth, sun, etc. Life (the puddle) forms to fit the environment. The environment exists first, lifeforms adapt to fit the environment.

It is as simple as that.

As for Adam and Eve existing 50,000 years ago -- none of that hogwash fits with reality. We know from genetic studies there were never less than a few thousand humans in existence. We also know the source man and source woman came from two different geographic regions (and probably different time periods) in Africa. The other lines died out.

There was no Adam. No Eve. No original sin. No need for Jesus. No need for Christianity.

Genetics is a bitch.

In my view, there is no need for cursing. It ruins a good point.

[ThePinsir]

Alright then, no more saying " I think", no more using Caps, if anyone else has things they want me to do and stop doing, just let me know. This definitely happened; these are historical events that happened to prove consciousness led to civilization;

transportation
education
science
religion
language
math
astrology
agriculture
war
archaeology
All this and more are signs of a definite curve in now conscious man, that primordial did not have in our capacity.

Why? Again points to a god.

What you're doing now is pre-supposing that it's all something super special, like modern humanity is some sort of "goal". It's not. Education, science, religion, language, everything in your list are byproducts of a species that evolved to have a big brain, and is, basically, nothing more.

For all we know everything on that list can exist on a billion other planets in our galaxy. Your view is very anthro-centric. I guess there's nothing WRONG with that, but it's not evidence of a god guiding the process.

Where we're at today is, simply, where we're at today. It's like - if I drop a leaf from the top of a tree, the odds of it landing on any one spot, facing a certain direction, are 1 in a billion-zillion-zillion-trillion, but it's going to land SOMEWHERE, right?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

But you then need to clearly define both where we, as a homonid species, began 'thinking' and subsequently where that 'thinking' culminated in the formation of civilisation.

You also need to define what you mean by 'civilisation'. Do you mean social, cohesive groups? Do you mean buildings? Do you mean cities?

The issue you have is that we have large reams of evidence to suggest that homo sapiens were not unique both in their ability to 'think' or their ability to form cohesive societal groups. Indeed, we don't even have to look into antiquity to garner evidence of this. Great apes today reveal to us their capability to 'think'; to assess an obstacle in front of them and reassess their behaviour and their actions to overcome or adapt.

And I think a further elucidation of 'consciousness' would be helpful here because, as above, if it is not defined coherently it's liable to fall apart at the slightest rebuttal.

I think reference to the ice age equating to the 'obvious turning point' may be a non sequitur. I can see evidence of adaption to a new environment, but I can't see evidence of it being a proverbial 'light bulb' moment where homo sapiens went from mindless, drooling savages (arguable on this point even but you get my point) to scholars, builders and artists.

I appreciate you're simply bounding your thoughts of us. However, if we are to have a debate on origin, saying 'I think' sort of debilitates your thesis if you then proceed to say 'This definitely happened'.

Alright then, no more saying " I think", no more using Caps, if anyone else has things they want me to do and stop doing, just let me know. This definitely happened; these are historical events that happened to prove consciousness led to civilization;

transportation
education
science
religion
language
math
astrology
agriculture
war
archaeology
All this and more are signs of a definite curve in now conscious man, that primordial did not have in our capacity.

Why? Again points to a god.

Again, you're not citing an actual origin here.

learning to make a rudimentary axe is conducive to eventually formulating a strategy of war.

Learning to sit in a cave in larger groups is conducive to the knowledge of safer in numbers.

Learning to place foliage over your ditch to protect you from the elements is conducive to building a sky scraper to house thousands of people.

Primordial 'man' (what do you mean by 'man' by the way?) had many skills of survival and adaption that were precursors to the society we live in today, but it appears you've discounted them?

You've started looking at this 'curve' when it was half way up.

None of this points to a god. It points to an argument from ignorance and an argument from personal incredulity ("there's no way this could mean anything other than x").

I'd also appreciate some elucidations on my previous points.

[ThePinsir]

" I do not believe atheism would exist without god, I really don't."

Oh? Why not?

" I cannot see then theism arising out of a world of atheism."

I can, quite simply actually. Theism, I'd assert, arises out of two or three things: 1) a fear of death 2) a need to explain unknown events/things (like your entire thread) 3) a means of controlling people

There may be more, and I certainly don't want to present any sort of a false dichotomy. But come one, bro (or sis, idk lol). Humans have invented like 40,000 gods - and you can't see how theism can arise on its own?

No, I can't see it. Minds completely unconscious of a god or gods, why and how would consciousness of a god emerge?

Well on second thought, if you accept that consciousness could emerge from absolute nothing, then I understand you're rationale.

Point 1 - AGAIN god of the gaps! "I don't understand X, therefore, god did it!" Dude, try harder.

Point 2 - Straw man. I didn't say, nor do any of us say, that consciousness emerged from nothing. I'm saying it emerged from a very large brain.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I think, Mickiel, that what you've posted there is another argument from ignorance or indeed an argument from personal incredulity.

We can evidence that the brain is what creates 'consciousness' quite simply. A person who has suffered brain death has no consciousness. A person that has suffered a stroke, or brain damage with a very obvious part of the brain being damaged or lost, can sometimes suffer a sever difference in their personality, or indeed forget 'who' they are.

If you're arguing that consciousness is some sort of evidence of a higher plane of existence then I will have to ask for evidence or deduce the claim is irresolvable and reject it.

Saying something must be because you think (want) it to be is not conducive to good debate.

The evidence I like using is " Civilization", excuse me for using caps again, a habit. I think some 30-50,00 years ago, god created adam, the first human he gave consciousness. Knowing that is not accepted here, lets just say whenever civilization began to emerge. I think it emerged BECAUSE god gave those humans consciousness. He did not give it fully to primordial humans.

The evidence fidel, is the obvious change in humanity, the curve it took. When primordial man basically died out after the ice age and the dawn of adam, its as if we took a dramatic left turn and exploded into a totally new direction; now we were thinking! And I think civilization is one of the evidence for consciousness, and again god.

gave rise to [6][7] anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Africa about 200,000 years ago where they began to exhibit evidence of behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

[mickiel]

Alright then, no more saying " I think", no more using Caps, if anyone else has things they want me to do and stop doing, just let me know. This definitely happened; these are historical events that happened to prove consciousness led to civilization;

transportation
education
science
religion
language
math
astrology
agriculture
war
archaeology
All this and more are signs of a definite curve in now conscious man, that primordial did not have in our capacity.

Why? Again points to a god.

What you're doing now is pre-supposing that it's all something super special, like modern humanity is some sort of "goal". It's not. Education, science, religion, language, everything in your list are byproducts of a species that evolved to have a big brain, and is, basically, nothing more.

For all we know everything on that list can exist on a billion other planets in our galaxy. Your view is very anthro-centric. I guess there's nothing WRONG with that, but it's not evidence of a god guiding the process.

Where we're at today is, simply, where we're at today. It like - if I drop a leaf from the top of a tree, the odds of it landing on any one spot, facing a certain direction, are 1 in a billion-zillion-zillion-trillion, but it's going to land SOMEWHERE, right?

Life only exist here, that is where we are at today, there is absolutely zero evidence of human life anywhere else. And that is just another proof of god; it was planned; its deliberate; its anthropic; its logical; its reasonable;

its academically pointing again to god.

---

Alright then, no more saying " I think", no more using Caps, if anyone else has things they want me to do and stop doing, just let me know. This definitely happened; these are historical events that happened to prove consciousness led to civilization;

transportation
education
science
religion
language
math
astrology
agriculture
war
archaeology
All this and more are signs of a definite curve in now conscious man, that primordial did not have in our capacity.

Why? Again points to a god.

Again, you're not citing an actual origin here.

learning to make a rudimentary axe is conducive to eventually formulating a strategy of war.

Learning to sit in a cave in larger groups is conducive to the knowledge of safer in numbers.

Learning to place foliage over your ditch to protect you from the elements is conducive to building a sky scraper to house thousands of people.

Primordial 'man' (what do you mean by 'man' by the way?) had many skills of survival and adaption that were precursors to the society we live in today, but it appears you've discounted them?

You've started looking at this 'curve' when it was half way up.

None of this points to a god. It points to an argument from ignorance and an argument from personal incredulity ("there's no way this could mean anything other than x").

I'd also appreciate some elucidations on my previous points.

I have read the rules, I am doing my best with what I understand. If you do not like the way I debate, then I can withdraw my threads and move on.

[ThePinsir]

Life only exist here, that is where we are at today, there is absolutely zero evidence of human life anywhere else. And that is just another proof of god; it was planned; its deliberate; its anthropic; its logical; its reasonable;

its academically pointing again to god.

"Life only exist here"

Prove it.

"Zero evidence of human life anywhere else"

Of course there isn't it. We wouldn't expect there to be. Again, your argument is anthro-centric. You're assuming humans are the ultimate, end-all, supreme goal of the universe. We're not anything special. We're just apes with big brains. No plan involved, just natural selection.

You accept evolution. You said that. So why do you think it was planned? You obviously don't understand evolution, or you only accept some crap apologetic definition of it. Why do you assume humans are so damn special?