Evolution

[Angrboda]

I doubt if Min has ever wasted a word on Rik.

Well, well, well.  

The professional blasphemous chap occasionally try his luck with me but he always hit a brick wall every time he try.  

Last time he tried he came up with the BS that the Nestorians introduced Christianity in India.  
After I show him that that was a load of BS he disappeared from my sight for quite sometime without of course apologize for his mistake.  

Obviously he got the message not to play stupid games with LR.  

[Aegon]

Obviously he got the message not to play stupid games with LR.  

Hahaha I think most of us learned that real early, bud.

[Angrboda]

You know, it's one thing that you shamelessly told lies about me, that you in your usual shit and run manner have decided to simply move on to the next bit of bullshit without acknowledgement or even so much as an attempt to explain yourself is something I find completely reprehensible.  That you think I could ever beat you in your downward descent down the ladder of moral integrity to the mental sewer is laughable given your track record.  Regardless, as I've just established, the bullshit about me illogically dismissing your prior arguments was based on nothing but lies and misrepresentation of the posts which are clearly visible as a record of your ridiculous claims that I didn't logically dissect each post.  With each of my counter-arguments, you failed to in any way address those logical objections, so unless you choose to renew one or more of your prior arguments within the next few days, I'm going to take that as tacit acknowledgement that you surrender any of your previous claims and evidence.  Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Simple.

1) By arguing that there is no evidence that the vibrations are alive you fall in the same stupid dogma that any fool fall by asking for evidence that the water is wet.

"If you can't explain something to a six-year-old, you really don't understand it yourself."

Your argument about life requiring life will be dealt with in greater detail under point number two, below.  For now, I want to concentrate on your repeated claim that the truth that vibrations are alive is as obviously true as the claim that water is wet.  I'll deal with the water analogy in a moment, but first I'd like to note that the appeal that something is "obvious" is effectively an ipse dixit argument in which you are appealing to yourself as an authority on the subject.  As can be clearly seen in the relevant discussions such as here, it on its own is nothing more than a fallacy.  Without further support, the appeal to obviousness fails.  You are no more an authority on the subject of vibrations, such as the ones physicists talk about, than I am.  You are just a layman and bogus attempts to draw scientists like Einstein into the mix based on a biased interpretation of an ambiguous quote is simply stupid.  Einstein had significant competencies, but a prescient knowledge of the ultimate conclusions of quantum mechanics and subatomic physics wasn't one of them.  His dispute with other physicists regarding whether or not God plays dice or not make clear that appealing to him as an authority in the matter is a lost cause.

But we don't have to be content with the claim that it's obvious as a prima facie complaint, we can go beyond the surface of such an assertion.  When we say that something is "obvious" what we mean to imply is that the truth of a statement is "self evident."  In other words, the claim implies that there are evident features of the phenomena which point to the conclusion.  So, what exactly are the evident properties of these (subatomic) vibrations?  There aren't many that we can appeal to here.  The most obvious is the fact that they in some sense vibrate.  Unfortunately this does not point us down a particular one of the three theories proposed, so we must investigate further.  Another property of subatomic vibrations such as electrons and neutrons or quarks is their fixed and unvarying nature.  An electron continues to be an electron unless something reacts with it.  Note that this does not appear to be anything like consciousness, or a child, or a vehicle occupied by a driver, as the behavior of those entities is seemingly random and unpredictable (due to their possessing free will, which is what you appealed to, I think, in the first place to explain why they vibrate at all).  Moreover, one electron is absolutely indistinguishable from another electron, as all their properties are identical.  There is no such thing as a "unique" electron.  This is quite different from consciousnesses and children in that each appear to bear a stamp of unmistakable uniqueness.   Now one might appeal to radioactive elements, whose nature is in some sense unpredictable at the level of the individual atom, however this won't work as the overall behavior of groups of atoms as a whole is statistically predictable and rigidly fixed in the aggregate.  Again, this statistical uniformity is unlike the behavior of consciousnesses, children, or vehicles save that a common aim can be intuited from the behavior -- but on what basis would that intuition rest?  We seem to have exhausted the self evident properties of these vibrations, and there is no additional information to appeal to here.  So, given what we can observe about these vibrations, what behaviors or properties are child-like?  What properties are vehicle-like?  It appears that the evident behaviors of these vibrations are marshaling against your contention that they are alive and conscious.

But there's a third matter that needs to be attended to here, and that is namely on what grounds does one or more of the parties in this debate get to claim that their explanation is the 'obvious' one.  It's well known that the idea that you believe something without reason or evidence for it -- dogma -- is anathema to your image of yourself as a person.  So you have a clear and obvious vested interest in claiming that vibrations are alive which cannot be ignored.  Your impartiality, not to mention your honesty regarding the matter is highly suspect.  Regardless, each camp has ulterior motives for asserting that their explanation is obvious, between the Yoga proponent, the Christian, and the atheist, so what are we to do to arbitrate this conflict?  Should we flip a three sided coin to determine who's right?

And a final note, following on your analogy of the obviousness of this proposition being akin to the question of whether water is wet or not.  As discussed, there are evident features of different phenomena that we can appeal to as being obvious.  As human beings, we share the same tactile senses and perceptual abilities upon which we can ground a common agreement that water is wet.  But what do we have in common to ground the contention that vibrations are alive?  It seems to be a matter of deep philosophical dimensions (ontology and metaphysics) which are diverse and divergent.  So the question itself appears in significant ways to be different than the question of whether water is wet.  As I've recently quoted the relevant principle via Hume (HERE), the more the two cases, your analogy and the subject of the analogy, the more they diverge, the less certain and reliable your analogical conclusions become.  Given the great difference between water being wet and the proposition that vibrations are alive is so great, the conclusion from your analogy is likely to be highly unreliable.

So, no, your claim that the truth of the claim that vibrations are alive is 'obvious' is defective on several levels.  I will turn to your arguments about life generating life next.

As we do not need for any peer-review that the water is wet we also do not need any scientific evidence that the vibration are alive considering that to create life it is needed life.

Even a 13 years old teen knows that mum and dad are required to bring to life a baby.

The question of whether or not life can come from non-life is a highly contentious controversy in the field of biology today.  Many Christians are confident that life can only come from life, and say as much.  As an atheist, I tend more toward an agnostic position that it is simply unknown whether or not life can come from non-life, and maintain no certainty one way or the other.  You for your part maintain that you are certain that life cannot come from non-life, so the question becomes what is the basis of your certainty?  We'll deal with that question under #2 below, but needless to say, you aren't going to convince anyone by appealing to stupid analogies about mums and dads and babies.  But I don't need to dispute you on analogical grounds, as we will see.

2) Consciousness is everywhere as the sun is all over.
There is a problem however.
In some places you can not see the sun.
Maybe is night, maybe is cloudy.
In other places however you can see the full sun.
Consciousness is also everywhere but in order to have a proper awareness of it you need a lot of personal evolution.
While matter is in a slumber or latent stage of evolution plants are slightly more aware.
Animals even more aware, human being a lot more aware and God if you believe in Him is 100% aware.

A dead body (we call it dead as the consciousness that lived in that body is gone or separated from it) in a way is not really dead as matter
is also energy-consciousness but matter is not aware so she can only live as matter for the time being.

Whether or not the consciousness of dead matter is perceptible or not does not in any way alleviate the problem.  You have made a claim about what so-called dead matter is capable of doing, or not doing.  You are claiming to have knowledge about the properties and such of dead matter.  Unfortunately, since dead matter is not in fact actually dead but is very much alive, you cannot generate these properties and such from your knowledge of that which we mistakenly call dead matter.  According to you, dead matter as such simply does not exist.  You can't have any knowledge about what something which does not exist can or will do, as such things are unknown and unknowable.  You are attempting to reason based on knowledge you do not have and cannot obtain, so any such arguments are doomed to failure from the get go.

It is akin to the position maintained by Christian advocates of intelligent design.  Supposedly, according to them, God created the rocks and the mountains and the rivers and all inanimate matter.  By necessity, they are designed by him.  They also claim a special creation in which God designed the plants and the animals and created them.  The intelligent design proponent will attempt to appeal to the ways in which things which weren't obviously designed, such as the rocks and the waters, and how they compare to things which they clearly assert are obviously designed such as the animals and other life.  But if both the rocks and animals were ultimately designed by God, then both should show the same hallmarks of design, and we no longer have any basis on which to make a comparison.  There are no undesigned things, so we can't postulate how undesigned things differ from designed ones.

Moreover, to the very heart of the argument, your claim that dead matter can or cannot do X is a clear example of the fallacy of the stolen concept.  You are "borrowing" the concept of dead matter from an atheist worldview in order to prove a point which ultimately ends up claiming that the very idea of any such dead matter is a bogus concept.  It's for reasons such as that why arguments which exhibit the fallacy of the stolen concept, as yours clearly does, are self-refuting.  They entail necessary contradictions which undermine the validity of the entire argument.  But don't take my word for it, feel free to read up on the fallacy of the stolen concept and see for yourself.

Atheism has no knowledge of whatsoever how consciousness works yet idiots like you pop up all the time arguing about important topics such as this carrying with them their demented beliefs in order to discredit anyone who understand how the system works.

And I would argue the opposite, that it is people like you and Sarkar who don't actually understand these things, and that your certainty rests comfortably upon mere sand, such as the arguments above.  Such posturing and trash talk on your part only serves to make you look ridiculous.  Particularly following on the heels of your dishonesty and failure to argue your case, as well as Sarkar's demonstrated incompetence and lack of judgement which I posted about earlier (I've lost track of the post, but the original hilarious example of Sarkar's ersatz derivation of the word mango can be read in the original article, Finally, a religious book about mangos).

Your knowledge about life is like that of a small child that believe that storks are carrying babies and you have shown this time and time again especially now that you argue about vibrations being alive.

Yeah, eat a sock, you deluded fuck.  

Your little brain is saturated with dogmas of all kind.

Since this appears to be a favorite topic of yours, I thought I'd address it on its own.  I freely admit that I have opinions and beliefs that I can't fully justify, what you would call dogmas, but which I would instead call axioms, educated guesses, and hypotheses.  Some of the latter I hold with a tenuousnes which is more akin to agnosticism than certainty.  It's generally the conventional wisdom of philosophy that you cannot build a description of the world without a few, ultimately unjustified assumptions.  The consensus is that we all rest our beliefs on dogma of one sort or another, despite what bullshit con-men like Sarkar may have fed you about being free of all dogma.  Since you appeal to the so-called "obviousness" of your dogma, that vibrations are alive, it's a relatively short step to demonstrating that you have unjustified assumptions as well by a straightforward appeal to Münchhausen's trilemma (see Wikipedia Here).  However, given your habit of shitting out arguments and then abandoning them, I'm not inclined to make the effort on your account.  You believe you are free of dogmas, but as anyone here on this forum can attest, you are a deluded fuck (in addition to being a dishonest asshole).  I'll leave it as a reader exercise.

[Mystic]

Little Rick well done but they argue by conjecture and refer back to it over and over again.

The problem is not the mind is incapable of reasoning properly, the problem is there is good and evil, truth and falsehood, if you rely on energy vibrations from the false spirits, you will get to a false place and use your time and mind in a very horrible manner and reach a horrible state.

At the end the Guide from God and attachment to his vision is a must in reasoning properly but God doesn't change a people till they change what is in themselves, and he will guide who takes the step towards guidance and will misguided those who avert themselves from guidance. And of course, there are the neutrals who have their own trial, and will be accounted with their circumstances.

As they get further and further in conjecture and not relying with a base point of starting with only certainty, they will just get more immersed in doubts while they claim they are seeking clarification.

What you said in the water analogy is beautiful, it's not that they won't get or don't, it's that their hearts aren't willing to accept and submit to what they are reminded of.

Don't take all the mocking at you personally, you've done well. 

At the end you see and perceive because you love the spiritual world, the vibrations, God and spirituality. They won't see it, not because you can't prove it, but they don't want to.

It's rather sad, but such is the stubborn culture we humans have emphasized and praised in one another, with little emphasis on absolute determination to get to the truth and for society to unite on it.

[GrandizerII]

Shut up MK.

[Angrboda]

[Angrboda]

I found the post demonstrating Sarkar's dubious judgement. It can be found here.

[JackRussell]

70 pages and now MK has taken a shit as well.

One thing I guess I respect is patience.

[Little Rik]

Little Rick well done but they argue by conjecture and refer back to it over and over again.

The problem is not the mind is incapable of reasoning properly, the problem is there is good and evil, truth and falsehood, if you rely on energy vibrations from the false spirits, you will get to a false place and use your time and mind in a very horrible manner and reach a horrible state.

At the end the Guide from God and attachment to his vision is a must in reasoning properly but God doesn't change a people till they change what is in themselves, and he will guide who takes the step towards guidance and will misguided those who avert themselves from guidance. And of course, there are the neutrals who have their own trial, and will be accounted with their circumstances.

As they get further and further in conjecture and not relying with a base point of starting with only certainty, they will just get more immersed in doubts while they claim they are seeking clarification.

What you said in the water analogy is beautiful, it's not that they won't get or don't, it's that their hearts aren't willing to accept and submit to what they are reminded of.

Don't take all the mocking at you personally, you've done well. 

At the end you see and perceive because you love the spiritual world, the vibrations, God and spirituality. They won't see it, not because you can't prove it, but they don't want to.

It's rather sad, but such is the stubborn culture we humans have emphasized and praised in one another, with little emphasis on absolute determination to get to the truth and for society to unite on it.

As you may have noticed I am not here to proselytize so I do not refer to my spiritual association.
It is rather yog that keep on referring to it time and time again.
As far as it concern me I am here to engage in an exchange of ideas because atheism to me is a foolish idea.
Whether these people understand or not that is their problem.
Eternity allow them to keep on born again and again and to knock their brain on the wall million of times.
Free will allow this.  

---

You know, it's one thing that you shamelessly told lies about me, that you in your usual shit and run manner have decided to simply move on to the next bit of bullshit without acknowledgement or even so much as an attempt to explain yourself is something I find completely reprehensible.  That you think I could ever beat you in your downward descent down the ladder of moral integrity to the mental sewer is laughable given your track record.  Regardless, as I've just established, the bullshit about me illogically dismissing your prior arguments was based on nothing but lies and misrepresentation of the posts which are clearly visible as a record of your ridiculous claims that I didn't logically dissect each post.  With each of my counter-arguments, you failed to in any way address those logical objections, so unless you choose to renew one or more of your prior arguments within the next few days, I'm going to take that as tacit acknowledgement that you surrender any of your previous claims and evidence.  Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Simple.

1) By arguing that there is no evidence that the vibrations are alive you fall in the same stupid dogma that any fool fall by asking for evidence that the water is wet.

"If you can't explain something to a six-year-old, you really don't understand it yourself."

Your argument about life requiring life will be dealt with in greater detail under point number two, below.  For now, I want to concentrate on your repeated claim that the truth that vibrations are alive is as obviously true as the claim that water is wet.  I'll deal with the water analogy in a moment, but first I'd like to note that the appeal that something is "obvious" is effectively an ipse dixit argument in which you are appealing to yourself as an authority on the subject.  As can be clearly seen in the relevant discussions such as here, it on its own is nothing more than a fallacy.  Without further support, the appeal to obviousness fails.  You are no more an authority on the subject of vibrations, such as the ones physicists talk about, than I am.  You are just a layman and bogus attempts to draw scientists like Einstein into the mix based on a biased interpretation of an ambiguous quote is simply stupid.  Einstein had significant competencies, but a prescient knowledge of the ultimate conclusions of quantum mechanics and subatomic physics wasn't one of them.  His dispute with other physicists regarding whether or not God plays dice or not make clear that appealing to him as an authority in the matter is a lost cause.

But we don't have to be content with the claim that it's obvious as a prima facie complaint, we can go beyond the surface of such an assertion.  When we say that something is "obvious" what we mean to imply is that the truth of a statement is "self evident."  In other words, the claim implies that there are evident features of the phenomena which point to the conclusion.  So, what exactly are the evident properties of these (subatomic) vibrations?  There aren't many that we can appeal to here.  The most obvious is the fact that they in some sense vibrate.  Unfortunately this does not point us down a particular one of the three theories proposed, so we must investigate further.  Another property of subatomic vibrations such as electrons and neutrons or quarks is their fixed and unvarying nature.  An electron continues to be an electron unless something reacts with it.  Note that this does not appear to be anything like consciousness, or a child, or a vehicle occupied by a driver, as the behavior of those entities is seemingly random and unpredictable (due to their possessing free will, which is what you appealed to, I think, in the first place to explain why they vibrate at all).  Moreover, one electron is absolutely indistinguishable from another electron, as all their properties are identical.  There is no such thing as a "unique" electron.  This is quite different from consciousnesses and children in that each appear to bear a stamp of unmistakable uniqueness.   Now one might appeal to radioactive elements, whose nature is in some sense unpredictable at the level of the individual atom, however this won't work as the overall behavior of groups of atoms as a whole is statistically predictable and rigidly fixed in the aggregate.  Again, this statistical uniformity is unlike the behavior of consciousnesses, children, or vehicles save that a common aim can be intuited from the behavior -- but on what basis would that intuition rest?  We seem to have exhausted the self evident properties of these vibrations, and there is no additional information to appeal to here.  So, given what we can observe about these vibrations, what behaviors or properties are child-like?  What properties are vehicle-like?  It appears that the evident behaviors of these vibrations are marshaling against your contention that they are alive and conscious.

But there's a third matter that needs to be attended to here, and that is namely on what grounds does one or more of the parties in this debate get to claim that their explanation is the 'obvious' one.  It's well known that the idea that you believe something without reason or evidence for it -- dogma -- is anathema to your image of yourself as a person.  So you have a clear and obvious vested interest in claiming that vibrations are alive which cannot be ignored.  Your impartiality, not to mention your honesty regarding the matter is highly suspect.  Regardless, each camp has ulterior motives for asserting that their explanation is obvious, between the Yoga proponent, the Christian, and the atheist, so what are we to do to arbitrate this conflict?  Should we flip a three sided coin to determine who's right?

And a final note, following on your analogy of the obviousness of this proposition being akin to the question of whether water is wet or not.  As discussed, there are evident features of different phenomena that we can appeal to as being obvious.  As human beings, we share the same tactile senses and perceptual abilities upon which we can ground a common agreement that water is wet.  But what do we have in common to ground the contention that vibrations are alive?  It seems to be a matter of deep philosophical dimensions (ontology and metaphysics) which are diverse and divergent.  So the question itself appears in significant ways to be different than the question of whether water is wet.  As I've recently quoted the relevant principle via Hume (HERE), the more the two cases, your analogy and the subject of the analogy, the more they diverge, the less certain and reliable your analogical conclusions become.  Given the great difference between water being wet and the proposition that vibrations are alive is so great, the conclusion from your analogy is likely to be highly unreliable.

So, no, your claim that the truth of the claim that vibrations are alive is 'obvious' is defective on several levels.  I will turn to your arguments about life generating life next.

As we do not need for any peer-review that the water is wet we also do not need any scientific evidence that the vibration are alive considering that to create life it is needed life.

Even a 13 years old teen knows that mum and dad are required to bring to life a baby.

The question of whether or not life can come from non-life is a highly contentious controversy in the field of biology today.  Many Christians are confident that life can only come from life, and say as much.  As an atheist, I tend more toward an agnostic position that it is simply unknown whether or not life can come from non-life, and maintain no certainty one way or the other.  You for your part maintain that you are certain that life cannot come from non-life, so the question becomes what is the basis of your certainty?  We'll deal with that question under #2 below, but needless to say, you aren't going to convince anyone by appealing to stupid analogies about mums and dads and babies.  But I don't need to dispute you on analogical grounds, as we will see.

2) Consciousness is everywhere as the sun is all over.
There is a problem however.
In some places you can not see the sun.
Maybe is night, maybe is cloudy.
In other places however you can see the full sun.
Consciousness is also everywhere but in order to have a proper awareness of it you need a lot of personal evolution.
While matter is in a slumber or latent stage of evolution plants are slightly more aware.
Animals even more aware, human being a lot more aware and God if you believe in Him is 100% aware.

A dead body (we call it dead as the consciousness that lived in that body is gone or separated from it) in a way is not really dead as matter
is also energy-consciousness but matter is not aware so she can only live as matter for the time being.

Whether or not the consciousness of dead matter is perceptible or not does not in any way alleviate the problem.  You have made a claim about what so-called dead matter is capable of doing, or not doing.  You are claiming to have knowledge about the properties and such of dead matter.  Unfortunately, since dead matter is not in fact actually dead but is very much alive, you cannot generate these properties and such from your knowledge of that which we mistakenly call dead matter.  According to you, dead matter as such simply does not exist.  You can't have any knowledge about what something which does not exist can or will do, as such things are unknown and unknowable.  You are  attempting to reason based on knowledge you do not have and cannot obtain, so any such arguments are doomed to failure from the get go.

It is akin to the position maintained by Christian advocates of intelligent design.  Supposedly, according to them, God created the rocks and the mountains and the rivers and all inanimate matter.  By necessity, they are designed by him.  They also claim a special creation in which God designed the plants and the animals and created them.  The intelligent design proponent will attempt to appeal to the ways in which things which weren't obviously designed, such as the rocks and the waters, and how they compare to things which they clearly assert are obviously designed such as the animals and other life.  But if both the rocks and animals were ultimately designed by God, then both should show the same hallmarks of design, and we no longer have any basis on which to make a comparison.  There are no undesigned things, so we can't postulate how undesigned things differ from designed ones.

Moreover, to the very heart of the argument, your claim that dead matter can or cannot do X is a clear example of the fallacy of the stolen concept.  You are "borrowing" the concept of dead matter from an atheist worldview in order to prove a point which ultimately ends up claiming that the very idea of any such dead matter is a bogus concept.  It's for reasons such as that why arguments which exhibit the fallacy of the stolen concept, as yours clearly does, are self-refuting.  They entail necessary contradictions which undermine the validity of the entire argument.  But don't take my word for it, feel free to read up on the fallacy of the stolen concept and see for yourself.

Atheism has no knowledge of whatsoever how consciousness works yet idiots like you pop up all the time arguing about important topics such as this carrying with them their demented beliefs in order to discredit anyone who understand how the system works.

And I would argue the opposite, that it is people like you and Sarkar who don't actually understand these things, and that your certainty rests comfortably upon mere sand, such as the arguments above.  Such posturing and trash talk on your part only serves to make you look ridiculous.  Particularly following on the heels of your dishonesty and failure to argue your case, as well as Sarkar's demonstrated incompetence and lack of judgement which I posted about earlier (I've lost track of the post, but the original hilarious example of Sarkar's ersatz derivation of the word mango can be read in the original article, Finally, a religious book about mangos).

Your knowledge about life is like that of a small child that believe that storks are carrying babies and you have shown this time and time again especially now that you argue about vibrations being alive.

Yeah, eat a sock, you deluded fuck.  

Your little brain is saturated with dogmas of all kind.

Since this appears to be a favorite topic of yours, I thought I'd address it on its own.  I freely admit that I have opinions and beliefs that I can't fully justify, what you would call dogmas, but which I would instead call axioms, educated guesses, and hypotheses.  Some of the latter I hold with a tenuousnes which is more akin to agnosticism than certainty.  It's generally the conventional wisdom of philosophy that you cannot build a description of the world without a few, ultimately unjustified assumptions.  The consensus is that we all rest our beliefs on dogma of one sort or another, despite what bullshit con-men like Sarkar may have fed you about being free of all dogma.  Since you appeal to the so-called "obviousness" of your dogma, that vibrations are alive, it's a relatively short step to demonstrating that you have unjustified assumptions as well by a straightforward appeal to Münchhausen's trilemma (see Wikipedia Here).  However, given your habit of shitting out arguments and then abandoning them, I'm not inclined to make the effort on your account.  You believe you are free of dogmas, but as anyone here on this forum can attest, you are a deluded fuck (in addition to being a dishonest asshole).  I'll leave it as a reader exercise.

Shame woman, shame.  

You almost write a book in order to keep alive a pure fantasy because the idea that life can come from non life is a pure fantasy.

You are the queen of hypocrite as well.
You say that you believe in science but science contradict the idea that life can come from non life.
 
Where the non life suppose to be yog?
Not in this universe so where?
Are you so so stupid to believe in a guess.




Maybe outside this universe there is some place where there is no life.
Maybe.

Go and find this place you fool.
In the meantime you keep on with your mental masturbation while intelligent people keep on with their progress in individual evolution.  

[robvalue]

It’s lucky that MK knows he can’t be fooled by “false spirits”.