Incredulity in the supernatural.

[blü 2]

Evolution is just the how.

We must cordially disagree on whether evolution is the why, but ... we'll survive, I think.

 

[PureX]

We must cordially disagree on whether evolution is the why, but ... we'll survive, I think.

I see no logical way the process of life forms evolving explains why life exists. That process happens because of the laws of physics. And we humans have absolutely no idea how, why, or by what impetus those laws came about. They are basically our recognition of what is possible, as opposed to what is not. And the imposition of possibility/impossibility precedes existence as we know it.

So true origin is a complete and unfathomable mystery to us. And if there is a 'why'; a purpose to it all (including us), it will come from within that mystery.

So you can respectfully disagree, but what you can't do is logically justify your doing so. What you're offering is just your chosen belief. Same as any theist might.

 

[wellwisher]

Surely there's a lot of different beliefs around, but since Christianity is the most popular, and Islam has quite the language/regional barrier, i directed my speech towards this first group.
I think the first words would add some context when i said:
"In your world view, what is our purpose? i assume we are fundamentally different from the rest of the animal kingdom?"
I think religion claims to have answer to the "Big Questions":
"Why are we here" "Where do we come from" that's what i was asking
The most popular religion today claims the existence of a Soul, something immortal that transcends human death, and also confers other properties, i clarify human since ¿apparently animals do not have souls? Again, not everyone believes that, but a significant portion does.
I'm naturally more attracted towards extraordinary claims, and the extraordinary evidence that should accompany them.
But of course i'm also interested if someone tells me they believe en god, but believe in science overall, in that case: what does God do in that regard?
Allow my then to simplify my question

What do you believe and why do you believe it?
Cheers!

Superficially humans are animals. However, humans have two centers of consciousness, whereas animals have one. Both humans and animals have a primary center of consciousness called the inner self. The inner self of each animal is connected to their species DNA, and defines the consciousness of each animal as connected to a unique species. For humans, the inner self defines our natural human propensities; human nature, common to all humans regardless of race, color or creed. We all can love and desire.

Humans differ from the animals in that we also have a secondary center of consciousness called the ego. This secondary appeared about the time frame of the rise of civilization; 6-10K years ago. The ego allows for will and choice apart from the primary center. This allows for superficial differences such as race, color or creed.

The easiest example to see both centers in action is connected to the modern fad of gender bending. The inner self would be connected to our biological DNA and the natural consciousness based on that; biological sex. The ego is based on will and choice and allows one to depart from the inner self, allowing one to make willful cosmetic changes, to the primary output, based on the state of science and technology; willful alteration of the innate DNA body.

The number of people who now relate to gender choice has gone up, since government started to promote this and back it up with free cosmetic changes. This rate of change of behavior cannot be explained with mutations, evolution and natural selection, since that path takes a much longer time; more than one generation to double. The change has to do with external education, as well as will and choice by the secondary center, plus science and tech, which derives from will and choice.

Adam and Eve symbolize the first true modern humans who had developed the secondary center and could willfully choose apart from life; instinct, in favor of learned knowledge of good and evil; pronouns. When the Bible says Adam and Eve were the first humans, it is not talking about the human inner self which is over a million years old, but the ego which in quite new and which appeared with the rise of civilization, unique secondary center only to humans.

Where science goes wrong is assuming only the DNA and the inner self exist in humans. Modern Psychology is designed for the ego and not the inner self. They do not take into account a secondary center that can willfully depart from natural instinct, in favor of the unnatural and manmade choices. Civilization is not natural. If humans had not be here on earth, it would not have naturally arisen from trees and single center natural monkeys. It is manmade via will and choice; artifact of the secondary center, which is a satellite of the primary center; earth around the sun. It is a human version of nature.

Religion is actually about the IT of the brain's firmware, connected to consciousness. It is more geared to the inner self. Whereas Atheism is more connected to the ego, which is trying to break free from nature and instinct, in favor of will and choice; gender. The ancient religion appeared when the ego was not as solidified, as today They had a better view of the inner self, as well as the rise of the ego, and how ego choices often damaged to the inner self. Ideally, a balance needs to be found between the needs of both since the ego evolved from the inner self, and the inner self, as the main frame aspect of consciousness, has higher human potential waiting to be tapped. An update first needs to occur; change of attitude, to harness the inner self.

 

[blü 2]

I see no logical way the process of life forms evolving explains why life exists.

I didn't take the question to be why life exists, but why we exist.

Life exists because in a manner so far undescribed a self-reproducing cell formed, and having done so got a successful foothold in its environment. And that made evolution possible. And evolution is why we humans exist, as well as why all the other species exist.

So true origin is a complete and unfathomable mystery to us.

We don't have any scientific reason to think it's unfathomable, merely unfathomed at this time. There's been steady progress this century.

And if there is a 'why'; a purpose to it all (including us), it will come from within that mystery.

Life as such has no purpose. It's just a particular set of chemical interactions, from which we derive our concept of biochemistry. But living things can have purposes, and humans, as far as we know the most complex of living things,are capable of complex purposes.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It has nothing to do with anyone lying...

We're talking about someone falsifying experiment results for personal gain with an intent to deceive others. There's no problem w/ calling that a "lie".

 

[Pete in Panama]

Please see:

Also, Pete,...

We already covered that above.

 

[Pete in Panama]

That is a large paragraph of non responsiveness.

We're obviously not communicating. We can set this aside, remain friends, and maybe even come back to this later. Life's too short.

 

[PureX]

I didn't take the question to be why life exists, but why we exist.

Life exists because in a manner so far undescribed a self-reproducing cell formed, and having done so got a successful foothold in its environment. And that made evolution possible. And evolution is why we humans exist, as well as why all the other species exist.


We don't have any scientific reason to think it's unfathomable, merely unfathomed at this time. There's been steady progress this century.

Life as such has no purpose. It's just a particular set of chemical interactions, from which we derive our concept of biochemistry. But living things can have purposes, and humans, as far as we know the most complex of living things,are capable of complex purposes.

What you're offering is your own chosen belief, same as any theist might. But the mystery remains a mystery for us all. And evolution doesn't change that except by 'belief', just like believing in creationism.

 

[PureX]

We're talking about someone falsifying experiment results for personal gain with an intent to deceive others. There's no problem w/ calling that a "lie".

No, you're talking about it. No one else sees any relevance in it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Superficially humans are animals. However, humans have two centers of consciousness, whereas animals have one. Both humans and animals have a primary center of consciousness called the inner self. The inner self of each animal is connected to their species DNA, and defines the consciousness of each animal as connected to a unique species. For humans, the inner self defines our natural human propensities; human nature, common to all humans regardless of race, color or creed. We all can love and desire.

Humans differ from the animals in that we also have a secondary center of consciousness called the ego. This secondary appeared about the time frame of the rise of civilization; 6-10K years ago. The ego allows for will and choice apart from the primary center. This allows for superficial differences such as race, color or creed.

The easiest example to see both centers in action is connected to the modern fad of gender bending. The inner self would be connected to our biological DNA and the natural consciousness based on that; biological sex. The ego is based on will and choice and allows one to depart from the inner self, allowing one to make willful cosmetic changes, to the primary output, based on the state of science and technology; willful alteration of the innate DNA body.

The number of people who now relate to gender choice has gone up, since government started to promote this and back it up with free cosmetic changes. This rate of change of behavior cannot be explained with mutations, evolution and natural selection, since that path takes a much longer time; more than one generation to double. The change has to do with external education, as well as will and choice by the secondary center, plus science and tech, which derives from will and choice.

Adam and Eve symbolize the first true modern humans who had developed the secondary center and could willfully choose apart from life; instinct, in favor of learned knowledge of good and evil; pronouns. When the Bible says Adam and Eve were the first humans, it is not talking about the human inner self which is over a million years old, but the ego which in quite new and which appeared with the rise of civilization, unique secondary center only to humans.

Where science goes wrong is assuming only the DNA and the inner self exist in humans. Modern Psychology is designed for the ego and not the inner self. They do not take into account a secondary center that can willfully depart from natural instinct, in favor of the unnatural and manmade choices. Civilization is not natural. If humans had not be here on earth, it would not have naturally arisen from trees and single center natural monkeys. It is manmade via will and choice; artifact of the secondary center, which is a satellite of the primary center; earth around the sun. It is a human version of nature.

Religion is actually about the IT of the brain's firmware, connected to consciousness. It is more geared to the inner self. Whereas Atheism is more connected to the ego, which is trying to break free from nature and instinct, in favor of will and choice; gender. The ancient religion appeared when the ego was not as solidified, as today They had a better view of the inner self, as well as the rise of the ego, and how ego choices often damaged to the inner self. Ideally, a balance needs to be found between the needs of both since the ego evolved from the inner self, and the inner self, as the main frame aspect of consciousness, has higher human potential waiting to be tapped. An update first needs to occur; change of attitude, to harness the inner self.

For something so completely fanciful, that sounded mighty sciency!

 

[Pete in Panama]

No, you're talking about it...

Right, and you responded. Look guy, seems like we're spinning our wheels here. Maybe we could take a deep breath, set this aside, stay friends, and maybe take this up later.

 

[blü 2]

What you're offering is your own chosen belief, same as any theist might.

Not same as any theist.

I state my assumptions out loud. That a world exists external to me. That my senses are able to inform me of that world. That reason is a valid tool.

I haven't met any one yet who doesn't share those assumptions, but if you don't, I'd be interested to hear what you don't assume there, and what you assume instead.

Those assumptions so far appear sufficient to support the views I've expressed to you here.

But the mystery remains a mystery for us all.

Indeed, our exploration, description and understandings of external reality are all works in progress. But no objective test can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

And evolution doesn't change that except by 'belief', just like believing in creationism.

You see no difference between conditional acceptance / belief on the basis of examinable evidence, and unconditional acceptance on the basis of postulations of imaginary things, gods and devils and fairies and four leaf clovers and eternal life after you're in fact dead, things of that kind?

 

[PureX]

Not same as any theist.

I state my assumptions out loud. That a world exists external to me. That my senses are able to inform me of that world. That reason is a valid tool.

I haven't met any one yet who doesn't share those assumptions, but if you don't, I'd be interested to hear what you don't assume there, and what you assume instead.

Those assumptions so far appear sufficient to support the views I've expressed to you here.

Not sufficient, however, to proclaim that life has no purpose but to express the mechanisms that enabled it. Because we have no way to determine the ultimate origin or purpose of those mechanisms.

Indeed, our exploration, description and understandings of external reality are all works in progress. But no objective test can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

Nevertheless, reason tells us that ‘nature’ has a source, and that source is by definition “supernatural”. And that to presume otherwise is unfounded.

You see no difference between conditional acceptance / belief on the basis of examinable evidence, and unconditional acceptance on the basis of postulations of imaginary things, gods and devils and fairies and four leaf clovers and eternal life after you're in fact dead, things of that kind?

I see that all “belief” is hubris. Presumptions pretending to be truths. Hope and faith are really all we have to work with.

 

[blü 2]

Not sufficient, however, to proclaim that life has no purpose but to express the mechanisms that enabled it. Because we have no way to determine the ultimate origin or purpose of those mechanisms.

Purposes express intentions and intentions imply sentient beings. Who is supposed to intend this purpose you speak of?

Nevertheless, reason tells us that ‘nature’ has a source, and that source is by definition “supernatural”.

Where did the universe come from? What pre-existed the Big Bang? Did time exist before the Big Bang? We have no firm answers.

But nothing supernatural is implied by any of the facts at our disposal. If some superbeing created the universe so that humans could exist, that being would stand forever as the touchstone of inefficiency, requiring 14 billion years and tens of septillions of stars and the consequent number of planets and satellites, and obtaining a result only in the last 200,000 years or so. To do what I suspect humans will do in the next few decades, artificially create self-reproducing cells ─ life ─ in the lab.

 

[PureX]

Purposes express intentions and intentions imply sentient beings. Who is supposed to intend this purpose you speak of?

That’s all a stretch I don’t make, myself. I understand that to we humans that implication is there, but in all honesty I don’t think we can even imagine what the reality of this mystery source would be.

Where did the universe come from? What pre-existed the Big Bang? Did time exist before the Big Bang? We have no firm answers.

For me, it’s more precise then that. Why, how, and for what reason is existence even possible? And why within what exists, are some things possible and other things not? For me it’s not a question of before and after, cause and result, but of what is possible and not possible determining what is.

But nothing supernatural is implied by any of the facts at our disposal.

No. But we exist within nature. Not apart from it, looking upon it with an overview. So of course all we see is it.

If some superbeing created the universe so that humans could exist, that being would stand forever as the touchstone of inefficiency, requiring 14 billion years and tens of septillions of stars and the consequent number of planets and satellites, and obtaining a result only in the last 200,000 years or so. To do what I suspect humans will do in the next few decades, artificially create self-reproducing cells ─ life ─ in the lab.

As my old college professor once said … what’s time to a pig?

 

[blü 2]

That’s all a stretch I don’t make, myself. I understand that to we humans that implication is there, but in all honesty I don’t think we can even imagine what the reality of this mystery source would be.

You'll understand if I don't find that very persuasive.

For me, it’s more precise then that. Why, how, and for what reason is existence even possible?

Taking existence to mean sentient existence, it's possible because biochemistry (genetics) + evolution have made it possible. We can credibly trace our genetics back through genus Homo to the great apes, primates, protomammals, to reptiles, to amphibians, to tetrapoda, to vertebrates, to bilateral body symmetry, to deuterstomes, and so on back to the protocell.

And one rule at least is constant ─ the resulting entity that survives and reproduces best in the various sets of circumstances that the world provides is most likely to survive best.

And why within what exists, are some things possible and other things not? For me it’s not a question of before and after, cause and result, but of what is possible and not possible determining what is.

We can't fly unaided because flying isn't found in our ancestors. However we can fly aided because we can invent balloons, parachutes, heavier than air machines, and indeed spacecraft.

No. But we exist within nature. Not apart from it, looking upon it with an overview. So of course all we see is it.

But you're arguing that not-seeing is believing, a generalization to which I don't subscribe.

As my old college professor once said … what’s time to a pig?

Was your professor successful in his or her application for a grant to investigate the question?

 

[F1fan]

I see no logical way the process of life forms evolving explains why life exists.

It's a concern that the most insecure worry about. And they have their answers that are not fact-based, so yet another problem is created.

The solution is for the insecure to face reality, and accept that life is a natural, chemical process that is quite ordinary.

That process happens because of the laws of physics. And we humans have absolutely no idea how, why, or by what impetus those laws came about.

It's just how things are.

They are basically our recognition of what is possible, as opposed to what is not. And the imposition of possibility/impossibility precedes existence as we know it.

To ponder possibilities is fantasy unless you follow facts. To ponder a supernatural is such a fantasy. And a trap that exploits the insecure mind.

So true origin is a complete and unfathomable mystery to us. And if there is a 'why'; a purpose to it all (including us), it will come from within that mystery.

You love your confusion.

 

[PureX]

You'll understand if I don't find that very persuasive.

What a strange response. What about what I wrote looks like it's trying to persuade anyone of anything?

Taking existence to mean sentient existence, it's possible because biochemistry (genetics) + evolution have made it possible.

But we still have no idea what make them possible. Or why.

We can credibly trace our genetics back through genus Homo to the great apes, primates, protomammals, to reptiles, to amphibians, to tetrapoda, to vertebrates, to bilateral body symmetry, to deuterstomes, and so on back to the protocell.

And one rule at least is constant ─ the resulting entity that survives and reproduces best in the various sets of circumstances that the world provides is most likely to survive best.

We can't fly unaided because flying isn't found in our ancestors. However we can fly aided because we can invent balloons, parachutes, heavier than air machines, and indeed spacecraft.

None of this addresses the fundamental questions at hand.

But you're arguing that not-seeing is believing, a generalization to which I don't subscribe.

I am not arguing, nor have I stated anything like that.

Everything we see is the result of processes that exist because they are possible. And they are possible because everything else is not possible. Why? What is the source of this limited possibility? What is it's purpose, if any? We do not know, but we are designed by those processes to ask, and to wonder, and to speculate, and to imagine solutions.

Was your professor successful in his or her application for a grant to investigate the question?

He was an artist, not a scientist.

 

[PureX]

It's a concern that the most insecure worry about. And they have their answers that are not fact-based, so yet another problem is created.

The solution is for the insecure to face reality, and accept that life is a natural, chemical process that is quite ordinary.

It's just how things are.

To ponder possibilities is fantasy unless you follow facts. To ponder a supernatural is such a fantasy. And a trap that exploits the insecure mind.

You love your confusion.

So, condescending arrogance is the solution, then. I'll be sure to let the rest of humanity know.

 

[blü 2]

But we still have no idea what make them possible. Or why.

Yes we do. Biochemistry and genetics make them possible and we have a better grasp of those studies than at any earlier time in our history ─ the what and the how. That's not a claim of perfection, but it's a claim that we can describe how most parts of living things work (we're even slowly closing in on the human brain) and how they succeed and self-repair and resist bugs and wounds and have a use-by date.

Everything we see is the result of processes that exist because they are possible. And they are possible because everything else is not possible.

That's an interesting question but only special parts of it, those in particular relevant to medicine and reproduction, are of particular relevance, I'd say.

Why? What is the source of this limited possibility? What is it's purpose, if any? We do not know, but we are designed by those processes to ask, and to wonder, and to speculate, and to imagine solutions.

And we get round to considering, and often answering, lots of questions given long enough or urgent enough. But if there was formerly a general or overarching mystery to the fact eg that we're each self-aware, each cogito ergo sum, I think we're working on the answer, with no expectation ─ at least at this stage ─ that anything more than the biochemistry and bioelectricity that make us go is involved.