lukethethird
unknown member
Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.
So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.
Can't prove you wrong, must be a trick question.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.
So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.
Sorry can't prove you wrong.Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.
So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.
Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.
So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.
If nature had a cause, the cause had to be something supernatural. This is necessarily true. The cause of nature (the natural world) had to be something that excists independently of nature
If the cause of the natural world was something natural then it couldn't be the cause of the natural world.
Just like the cause of the first computer by definition could have not been a computer otherwise it wouldn't be the first computer. The cause of the first natural "thing" could have not been something natural.
The fact you can ask this question is your proof.Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.
So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.
Nah... first you need to demonstrate that it's possible for anything supernatural to even exist before you can claim it as the cause of the natural world's current state of existence.
The fact you can ask this question is your proof.
Based on science (Which i accept as the only way to validate our physical reality), our brain is a collection of neurons.
These neurons are a collection of "points" connected with "bridges" that communicate using electrical pulses running from one set of points to others.
Based on science, we are bound to these connections (there is an actual video showing such a connection being formed - amazing thing to see).
Each connection made becomes part of your brain's pattern.
Each brain in nature works the same way! no matter if you are a mouse or chimp, a horse or an ant. the brain works in a similar way.
But there is a very special thing with humans.
You can on any given time, act in absolute contrast to those patterns!
You can decide in an instant to change your entire brain patterns. This is what it means being in God's image.
Not looking like it, rather having the ability to change your way of behavior regardless to how your brain is "programmed".
Being able to ask a question like "prove god is real", means you are able to discuss a concept that is outside the scope of your reality.
You literally are able to create reality in your own brain and pass the idea of that reality to other humans.
No matter how science describes the process that makes this ability be available to us the fact remains this ability is unique to humans and is real.
How curious it is that these concepts are described in details long before science discovered them
The question is false.Or in simpler terms:
Why would evolution (or some other completely natural mechanism) would create brains that would wonder about the existence of God?.
The question is false.
Evolution has no "will". evolution is a description of a process that was long ago proven to the point of a very high probability.
There is no doubt our brain evolved.
as for the question why it evolved as it did, there are several thesis.
you can't search for a "meaning reason" in science rather a "cause reason".
The meaning question will always remain a philosophy.
Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.
So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.
This is not a very persuasive argument, as it assumes that natural processes cannot produce a useless or negative result, or a result that is detrimental to its own generative process. And that's a rather big, and I think groundless, assumption. Natural processes, especially where they apply to generating life forms, tend to produce as many different results as are possible, and then allow the most effective result to overwhelm the lesser effective (survival of the fittest).Why would evolution (or some other completely natural mechanism) create brains that would wonder about the existence of God?. ...Wondering about the existence of God doesn’t have any selective benefit over a brain that doesn’t care. So why did we evolve a brain with the unnecessary (but complex and energy consuming) ability to wonder about the existence of God.
We don't actually know that this is so, since we do not understand the forces that have generated this specific existential universe, as opposed to any other. And even more than that, we don't know what determined these forces and set them forth, or why (if there is a 'why').Evolution has no "will".
Yes, this is so because science cannot explore such a metaphysical question. That's why we humans engage in art, and religion, and philosophy, and so on.There is no doubt our brain evolved.
as for the question why it evolved as it did, there are several thesis.
you can't search for a "meaning reason" in science rather a "cause reason".
The meaning question will always remain a philosophy.
… for your gods son Christ who is supposed to be repeating the words of Supreme Lord Krishna…
…for he is saying Thou shall not kill. but you are killing and maintaing organized slaughter houses. so you are pissing on him and his teaching but still fun is you are christian ?
Proving that the natural world had a cause, wound automatically prove that the cause is not natural (supernatural)
The cause of mater by definition has to be inmaterial
The cause of time, by definition has to be timeless
The cause of the first computer that has ever existed by definition has to be something that is not a computer
The cause of the firs “blue thing” that has ever existed, by definition has to be “not blue”
In the same way the cause of the first natural thing that has ever existed by definition would have to be something “not natural”
My only burden is to show that the natural world had a cause,
What you demand as verification precludes the possibility of it occurring. This is both illogical and intellectually disingenuous.Nope... you need to provide verifiable evidence that anything supernatural can exist before you claim that it has or can cause anything. The cause of the current physical laws of nature could very easily have been natural and there's absolutely no reason to believe that it wasn't.
Nope... you need to provide verifiable evidence that anything supernatural can exist before you claim that it has or can cause anything. The cause of the current physical laws of nature could very easily have been natural and there's absolutely no reason to believe that it wasn't.
This is not a very persuasive argument, as it assumes that natural processes cannot produce a useless or negative result, or a result that is detrimental to its own generative process. And that's a rather big, and I think groundless, assumption. Natural processes, especially where they apply to generating life forms, tend to produce as many different results as are possible, and then allow the most effective result to overwhelm the lesser effective (survival of the fittest).
But it's you who is labeling them "beneficial"; implying some sort of intention. When in fact it's the action of change. Whatever is possible for the system to create, it creates. And whatever is able to survive, survives. There is no reason that such a system could not create a form that is self-destructive, other-destructive, or even systemically destructive. There is no reason that evolution, as it has manifested on the Earth, could not create a life form that would willingly destroy all life on Earth, including even itself. And in fact, it may well have done so. And if so, then evolution is clearly lacking any logical intent.Evolution (random mutations and natural selection) can't create complex specified systems unless there is a path with beneficial steps. Otherwise you would be climbing "mount improbable "
I see no evidence or reasoning to believe this to be so.Evolution wouldn't create complex brains capable of wondering about philosophical questions because this ability would not add any selective advantage.