Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 2:34 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
FallentoReason 2.0
#21
RE: FallentoReason 2.0
Quote:What causes matter to take on this pathway?

Survival. The complex chemical compounds who self-reproduced were able to carry on, the other complex chemical compounds simply became a source of chemicals for the self-reproducing ones.

Quote:I don't know exactly what the con is. What have I "saved" myself from? Is it something also related to evolution meaning that my biological needs have fooled me into something that isn't necessarily so, such as being able to live forever? Does anyone have a possible answer to this?

It's not a con. It's just a way to make the universe more relatable. We want to be special, to have a particular place in the universe.
Reply
#22
RE: FallentoReason 2.0
Kirbmarc Wrote:Survival. The complex chemical compounds who self-reproduced were able to carry on, the other complex chemical compounds simply became a source of chemicals for the self-reproducing ones.

Interesting. Since when do chemicals (i.e. material things) have the desire to "survive"?

Quote:It's not a con. It's just a way to make the universe more relatable. We want to be special, to have a particular place in the universe.

I don't want to feel "special" per se. I think we can quite easily generalise Theism as being something that satisfies that longing. Deism on the other hand seems to me like it's about the cold hard facts. There's no reason for me to think I'm special, just like people who are born into a life that will only last less years than what I can count with both hands. There's no way this Creator thing designed us to be on a pedestal, because reality says otherwise.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Reply
#23
RE: FallentoReason 2.0
With those views you are officially a deistic existential nihilist.?

And, in "reality" as you put it, there is purpose to life or one might say life need not exist. But then why does life exist? The life of a bee consists of buzz, get pollen,buzz, get pollen. But those minute , "meaningless" actions transcend into much higher functions than the bee is ever aware of.
Reply
#24
RE: FallentoReason 2.0
Quote:Interesting. Since when do chemicals (i.e. material things) have the desire to "survive"?

No need for desires. The chemical compounds who reproduced themselves (i.e. RNA) left copies. The other compounds didn't. It's as simple as that.

Quote:Deism on the other hand seems to me like it's about the cold hard facts.

The "cold hard facts" tell us that the universe wasn't made for life, life adapted to the universe. There's a massive amount of evidence for adaptation, no evidence for design.
Reply
#25
RE: FallentoReason 2.0
(November 26, 2012 at 9:32 pm)whateverist Wrote: Hey, Deist Palladan. Are you still around? Please tell us what got you on the wagon at one time even if you've jumped off since.

I'm just now recovering from this nasty cold enough to coherently put thoughts together again and not sleep 12-18 some odd hours a day. This universe is clearly not perfect. Wink

I'm reading this whole thread as best as I can before I jump in.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#26
RE: FallentoReason 2.0
As promised, I'm trying to take in all the insightful posts on this thread and assemble my own thoughts on the subject. My mind reels a bit here, not knowing quite where to begin. Tackling religion is a comparative no-brainer, like shooting fish in a barrel. On the other hand, deism v atheism is a lot less clear for me, one where I do have a lot of mixed thoughts and for the sake of intellectual honesty, I'll share them here.

I've probably mentioned before that deism is for me a mental truce between my skeptical brain and lofty sentiments. It's a spirituality grounded strictly in the natural universe. In fact, the natural universe is the basis for that sense of wonder. From the micro to the macro, I see a machine and looking at the human mind and human civilization, I see intent.

Beyond instinctive sentiment, I'd offer that much came together in our evolution that seems very fortunate. I'm not just talking about the increased cranial capacity but other factors. Opposable thumbs, walking upright to free up our hands, shedding our fur allowing us to make these chattering noises to communicate, our innate sense of empathy and community all came together to make our civilization possible.

The counter-argument is the law of infinite probability. Over infinite space and/or time, anything that can happen, however unlikely, will. Perhaps humans won the "cosmic lottery" which is why we're here to think about it at all. This is why "what-are-the-odds?" isn't hard evidence, at least not for our small sample size of 1.

The "sentient puddle" that Kirbmarc mentioned is also a potent analogy. To counter it, I'd need to find a design feature that is beneficial and yet too indirect to be explained by natural selection alone. I've used my "homosexuality proves God" to be a counter-argument (homosexuality in both humans and animals creates stable families that can't have their own children that can adopt orphaned children). Even here though, atheists can still argue this is merely a fortunate by-product.

On the plus side, it's a deist argument that Kirk Cameroon isn't likely to hijack any time soon.

We really need a larger sample so that we have a basis of comparison. If the deism model for the universe is true, I would expect to find plentiful life and intelligent life at that. If it is just us, it begins to look more like we were just fortunate. If many other worlds are also beating the odds, that might tell us something different.

(November 21, 2012 at 9:01 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Whenever I hear Deist arguments, I always think of the wise words of Carl Sagan: "Why not save yourself a step...".

Well deism isn't an answer, which seemed to be his point in that episode of Cosmos. It's not an end to my search but rather encapsulates my sense of wonder that drives my search. I'd still like to know more details about how it all happened and how we might use that knowledge.

Genkaus Wrote:If this is what you mean by "supernatural" or "god" or "creator", then even I would be classified as a Deist or a Theist.

I don't think God, by which I mean this mysterious mind that I'm thinking is behind it all, is supernatural.

My reasoning is this: anything that exists can be potentially studied. Anything that can be studied can be potentially understood. Anything that can be potentially understood can be explained. Anything that can be explained is natural. Thus if we had infinite knowledge, I think we'd be able to understand the nature, properties and limitations of God.

But of course I could be wrong and these sentiments might be just that. Hence my "agnostic" side.

...oh, and I also get to identify with great thinkers of the Enlightenment who had fantastic hair.

[Image: 220px-Atelier_de_Nicolas_de_Largilli%C3%...)_-002.jpg]
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#27
RE: FallentoReason 2.0
The no-God hypothesis folk would have you believe that, despite all those eons and eons and eons and eons of perpetual motion, uncaused, past-eternal quantum fluctuating universe/multiverse, that no atheist life form from the past, has ever managed to work out a way of sending an atheist greeting message into the future to tell the theists here on earth that the supernatural being called God does not exist.

(or souls, or angels, or demons...)
Reply
#28
RE: FallentoReason 2.0
FTR, looking at all the amazing things and going "wow....how is that even possible?!? Just - wow", while a universal human trait and the basis for so many belief systems, still does not constitute reason. It essentially boils down to "I don't understand, therefore god", or more correctly; appeal to ignorance. Kirbmarc has the right of it; chemical reactions occur because of the physical laws that govern the universe. Biology follows, as does sentience and civilization. Time and brownian motion dude. That's all.
Doesn't stop the universe from being gape-jawed wonderful.
Reply
#29
RE: FallentoReason 2.0
Quote: To counter it, I'd need to find a design feature that is beneficial and yet too indirect to be explained by natural selection alone. I've used my "homosexuality proves God" to be a counter-argument (homosexuality in both humans and animals creates stable families that can't have their own children that can adopt orphaned children). Even here though, atheists can still argue this is merely a fortunate by-product.

This is a good counterargument (and not one that I've heard before) but it's easy to argue against it: pure homosexuality is rare. Usually animals who engage mainly in homosexual behavior also copulate with the opposite sex. Therefore, they pass their genes.

Homosexual behavior in nature evolved to counter the "alpha male" phenomenon: beta males offer sex to the alpha, and in exchange also get a shot at being part to the community and possibly even have offsprings (since they're actually bisexual). Female homosexuality evolved to strengthen the bonds within the females and counter the dangerous effects of the competution for the males.

Furthermore, homosexuality limits the number of offsprings, which can be a good thing in cases of overpopulation (i.e. the population is reduced but there is no extinction). The adoptions by homosexual families are, indeed, a fortunate by-product.

The human society is diffferent, but the human society is also governed by culture. We've made possible for individuals with traits (like asthma) that would have been wiped out by natural selection to survive and thrive. Furthermore, homosexual behavior in the past was rarely the only sexual behavior that a person adopted in his life (in Ancient Greece people married, had children and engaged in homosexuality).

Pure homosexuals (like pure heterosexuals) are actually rare. The majority of the population is actually bisexual to a certain degree. And it's interesting to know that pure homosexuals can still have paternal or maternal instincts (evolution couldn't predict the invention of artificial insemination) and have become more prevalent in the last century, when overpopulation has become an issue.

Quote:The counter-argument is the law of infinite probability. Over infinite space and/or time, anything that can happen, however unlikely, will. Perhaps humans won the "cosmic lottery" which is why we're here to think about it at all. This is why "what-are-the-odds?" isn't hard evidence, at least not for our small sample size of 1.

I think thatn it's easy to prove that the odds for intelligent life are actually pretty good, in this universe (and probably in most universes stable enough to produce stars). I wouldn't be surprised if we discovered other sentient life forms, somewhere out there.

Quote:Opposable thumbs, walking upright to free up our hands, shedding our fur allowing us to make these chattering noises to communicate, our innate sense of empathy and community all came together to make our civilization possible.

You're being too anthropocentric. True, intelligent life just like ours is really unlikely. But who'sto say the path we have followed is the only one that leads to intelligence?

This is one of the reasons why I find the traditional depiction of humanoid aliens hard to swallow. Alien intelligent life is probably anything but humanoid.

Quote:The no-God hypothesis folk would have you believe that, despite all those eons and eons and eons and eons of perpetual motion, uncaused, past-eternal quantum fluctuating universe/multiverse, that no atheist life form from the past, has ever managed to work out a way of sending an atheist greeting message into the future to tell the theists here on earth that the supernatural being called God does not exist.

Theism is probably so specifically human (it's a very specific cultural by-product of some specific features of some homo sapiens species) that other life forms aren't concerned with it. They probably have their own ideas about the universe, different from both theism or atheism as we know them.

No theist life form has worked out a way to spread a theist greeting message, either, as far as we know.

Quote:Time and brownian motion dude. That's all.

Time, brownian motion and survival of the structures who can replicate themselves.
Reply
#30
RE: FallentoReason 2.0
(December 5, 2012 at 4:46 am)Kirbmarc Wrote: Theism is probably so specifically human (it's a very specific cultural by-product of some specific features of some homo sapiens species) that other life forms aren't concerned with it. They probably have their own ideas about the universe, different from both theism or atheism as we know them.

No theist life form has worked out a way to spread a theist greeting message, either, as far as we know.

And here's poca standing as an example!
[Image: SeoAlien9-300x300.jpg]
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)