Question on Intelligent Design

[shawn001]

I meant when you ARE looking at them, OK?

I meant when you ARE looking at them, OK?

Again I answered that already they are both!

When I am not looking at them they are stored in brain cells as memories. I can form a "picture of them" in my brain without vision which is needed to look at them in real time, although you're always looking at them in the past.


HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE SUNLIGHT TO REACH THE EARTH?
"Here’s a question… how long does it take sunlight to reach Earth? This sounds like a strange question, but think about it. Sunlight travels at the speed of light. Photons emitted from the surface of the Sun need to travel across the vacuum of space to reach our eyes.

The short answer is that it takes sunlight an average of 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth.

If the Sun suddenly disappeared from the Universe (not that this could actually happen, don’t panic), it would take a little more than 8 minutes before you realized it was time to put on a sweater."

 

[shawn001]

That's just your slant. Truth is, 'science' as it applies to medicine, is very political, the HMO's and Big Pharma a case in point.

Most of the 'wonder' drugs science and technology have come up with have deleterious side effects that can even lead to death. You see the law firms raking in mega bucks everyday as they advertise on TV, outlining the details of class action lawsuits where these drugs have gone terribly wrong.

The progress of mind/body integration thinking is not so much because of science's progress, but because alternative medicine, like acupuncture and ayurveda, and the application of spiritual and contemplative practices, such as meditation, yoga, and chanting have proven themselves as powerful healing forces.

Last I heard, penicillin had run into big trouble as target bacteria had mutated quickly and efficiently to overcome it's efficacy.

You may think it is a slant but it not. I use a mind-body complementary method using hypnotherapy quite successfully for pain, stress, and anxiety reduction and for other health benefits in provides. If I had a broken arm, I could do yoga, meditation, ayurveda, acupuncture and chant all I want, but it would not fix a broken arm.

"HMO's and Big Pharma" are businesses.

"Most of the 'wonder' drugs science and technology have come up with have deleterious side effects that can even lead to death. You see the law firms raking in mega bucks everyday as they advertise on TV, outlining the details of class action lawsuits where these drugs have gone terribly wrong."

Science does not understand the entire human body yet, which is why there is something called research. The above does happen, however, you, of course, are missing all the help and lives saved as well. You have a slant for sure.

"such as meditation, yoga, and chanting have proven themselves as powerful healing forces."

Have proven themselves (through science) as powerful healing forces. This is called " Evidence-based" and is very important.


I know you don't understand the difference between, alternative medicine, complementary medicine, and integrative medicine.

"
East Meets West: How Integrative Medicine is Changing Health Care
A marriage of conventional Western medicine with other healing modalities, including complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), integrative medicine (IM) neither rejects conventional medicine nor uncritically embraces alternative therapies. Rather, IM can be described as a practice that "cherry picks" the best and scientifically supported therapies of both systems. This article offers a look into IM and what it means for the future of health care."

East Meets West: How Integrative Medicine is Changing Health Care - Explore Integrative Medicine

"Last I heard, penicillin had run into big trouble as target bacteria had mutated quickly and efficiently to overcome it's efficacy"

Which is all learned from science and " Evidence-based."

Godnotgog, what is "Anecdotal evidence" and how does it differ from "Evidence-based" medicine.

 

[shawn001]

It's interesting because the other inner rocky planets don't really have moons to speak of, a couple of rocks.. its improbable for any small inner planet to acquire good sized moons like the giants do. while our moon is so large that we have a practical binary system, and a system crucial for life as we know it,

Moreover- the most interesting thing about the actual relative size and distance of the sun and moon;

The moon's disk 'just happens' to perfectly match that of the sun's during eclipses.. masking it's direct light, revealing the corona, which allows us to study the composition of our own star and hence deduct much of the composition of the visible universe... Many cosmologists have remarked on how much less we would know about the cosmos without this.

Yet one more extraordinary coincidence? That's not technically impossible of course, but I think there are less improbable explanations..

There was a very chaotic period of terrestrial planet formation.

"It's interesting because the other inner rocky planets don't really have moons to speak of, a couple of rocks.. its improbable for any small inner planet to acquire good sized moons like the giants do. while our moon is so large that we have a practical binary system, and a system crucial for life as we know it,"

There are many complicated processes I don't personally want to go over here at this time, but part of the answer is the size and the amount of material.

Some info here.

Why do the inner planets have far fewer moons than the outer planets? • r/askscience

Our moon is NOT a captured satellite though.

"The moon's disk 'just happens' to perfectly match that of the sun's during eclipses."

The moon is moving away from us and at some point we won't have the "The moon's disk 'just happens' to perfectly match that of the sun's during eclipses." The moon when it first formed from the impact use to be huge in the sky.

"masking it's direct light, revealing the corona, which allows us to study the composition of our own star and hence deduct much of the composition of the visible universe... Many cosmologists have remarked on how much less we would know about the cosmos without this."

This is perhaps truer in early astronomy, but now we can do the same effect with satellites. In fact we do.

You have to be careful using the term "extraordinary coincidence" while there is the Weak Anthropic Principle.

The birth of our solar system was a very chaotic and "violent" event.

Stephen Hawking - Formation of the Solar System

They have not completely figure out the moon yet.

When and How Did the Moon Form? - Sky & Telescope

"From year to year, the moon never seems to change. Craters and other formations appear to be permanent now, but the moon didn't always look like this. Thanks to NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, we now have a better look at some of the moon's history.

 

[godnotgod]

Again I answered that already they are both!

When I am not looking at them they are stored in brain cells as memories. I can form a "picture of them" in my brain without vision which is needed to look at them in real time, although you're always looking at them in the past

Let me rephrase...

Let us omit looking at them.

Where does your consciousness end, and the actual Sun and moon (not memories of them) begin?

To put it another way: Where does your consciousness end and the outside world of 'things' begin?

Remember, 'my consciousness' is predicated on the notion of a self, or 'I' that is in possession of such a consciousness, a problem in itself, since self, or 'I' is that very consciousness. Remember our baby, who has no sense of self until around 13 months? Until then, his, or hers, is just consciousness, without any 'my' consciousness attached.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There are many complicated processes I don't personally want to go over here at this time, but part of the answer is the size and the amount of material.

yes of course, which all makes chance a less probable explanation for something so crucial to our existence

The moon is moving away from us and at some point we won't have the "The moon's disk 'just happens' to perfectly match that of the sun's during eclipses." The moon when it first formed from the impact use to be huge in the sky.

Yes, that this coincidence happened at the exact point in history that it could be made use of to help humanity understand creation... makes it even more remarkable.

Just as Polaris aligned with the north pole at the exact point it could provide an indispensable navigation aid to humans colonizing the globe ( as well as aligning telescopes)

as in your avatar, what may look superficially chaotic, was very precisely balanced by a vast array of finely tuned constants and mathematical algorithms.

All coincidences... not technically impossible of course, but I think there are less improbable explanations..

 

[shawn001]

yes of course, which all makes chance a less probable explanation for something so crucial to our existence




Yes, that this coincidence happened at the exact point in history that it could be made use of to help humanity understand creation... makes it even more remarkable.

Just as Polaris aligned with the north pole at the exact point it could provide an indispensable navigation aid to humans colonizing the globe ( as well as aligning telescopes)

as in your avatar, what may look superficially chaotic, was very precisely balanced by a vast array of finely tuned constants and mathematical algorithms.

All coincidences... not technically impossible of course, but I think there are less improbable explanations.

Humans are hardwired to see what they want to see and connect the dots.

This Is Why We All Love A Good Coincidence

This Is Why We All Love A Good Coincidence | HuffPost

"yes of course, which all makes chance a less probable explanation for something so crucial to our existence"

The laws of probability and statistics apply as well. They are very important as well as the brain in all this and explaining and trying to understand things.

It's actually the other way around.

"Just as Polaris aligned with the north pole at the exact point it could provide an indispensable navigation aid to humans colonizing the globe ( as well as aligning telescopes)"

"Is Polaris the north star for all the other planets just like it is for Earth?"

Other planets have stars whose positions approximate their respective celestial poles, but Polaris is currently the "pole star" only for Earth. We wrote 'currently,' because the precession of the equinoxes causes Earth's pole to describe a 47 degree circle through space over an approximately 26,000 year period. Consequently, the North Celestial Pole position migrates through the sky. For instance, 5000 years ago, the North Celestial Pole pointed toward Thuban, star within Draco the Dragon. About 13,000 years from now, the NCP will point toward Vega, the brightest of the three "Summer Triangle" stars. Presently, Polarismarks the general region of the North Celestial Pole for Earth.

The alignment of the NCP with Polaris is just a 'chance' event. Our planet's pole just happens to be directed toward Polaris now. Other planets are 'tilted' toward other directions in the sky. However , because they are all more or less aligned similarly with Earth's pole (save Uranus, which rotates on its side), the other planet's north polar stars are likewise found in our nortnern celestial hemisphere.

We can provide some examples.

Omicron Draconis (a star in Draco the Dragon, a circumpolar constellation for us) is the north polar star on Mercury.

42 Draconis is Venus' north pole star

Sadr and Deneb (the upper two stars marking the tip of the Northern Cross, an asterism within Cygnus the Swan) approximate the position of the North Celestial Pole for Mars

Zeta Draconis is Jupiter's pole star

Saturn NCP is not directed toward any prominent star presently

Uranus, being inclined almost 90 degrees, has a pole oriented toward Orion's "head": region.

Delta Cygni, a star in Cygnus the Swan, is Neptune's pole star

Delta Draconis is Pluto's pole star.

The north poles of a few planets are aligned toward stars within Draco the Dragon. All of these pole stars will eventually change as all planets experience precession, albeit at different rates.

Just an extra note: Earth's South Celestial Pole has a stellar marker as well. It is sigma Octans, a star that is just faint enough (magnitude 5.65) to be visible under only the most favorable conditions. For this reason, the Southern Cross' longer axis is often used instead to direct observers toward the South Celestial Pole.

*Polaris will never precisely mark the NCP. It is drawing closer to it through precessional wobbling. By 2102, it will reach its minimum angular distance of 27 arc-seconds from the North Celestial Pole.

https://usm.maine.edu/planet/polaris-north-star-all-other-planets-just-it-earth

"as in your avatar, what may look superficially chaotic, was very precisely balanced by a vast array of finely tuned constants and mathematical algorithms."

The second law of thermodynamics is the universe is getting less orderly with time.

Why would it be the other way around for a creator and why wouldn't this creator just get it right the first time?

I also mention the weak anthropic principle, because if things didn't work out that way you wouldn't be here, God or no God.

We can't use miracles to explain things in science.

Why did you pick the north star as opposed to the south star Sigma Octans?

Were all those billion's of craters on the moon random hits?

 

[shawn001]

Let me rephrase...

Let us omit looking at them.

Where does your consciousness end, and the actual Sun and moon (not memories of them) begin?

LOL, You can't omit looking at them.

Now I will use your TV analogy. If you don't get a signal to the TV, does the TV produce images of the Sun and Moon on its own?

 

[Valjean]

Which seems more likely:
The universe ordered itself for the convenience of yet-to-evolve life forms on an otherwise unremarkable planet.
or
Life evolved on this planet to fit the conditions it found itself in.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Humans are hardwired to see what they want to see and connect the dots.

This Is Why We All Love A Good Coincidence

This Is Why We All Love A Good Coincidence | HuffPost

"yes of course, which all makes chance a less probable explanation for something so crucial to our existence"

The laws of probability and statistics apply as well. They are very important as well as the brain in all this and explaining and trying to understand things.

It's actually the other way around.

"Just as Polaris aligned with the north pole at the exact point it could provide an indispensable navigation aid to humans colonizing the globe ( as well as aligning telescopes)"

"Is Polaris the north star for all the other planets just like it is for Earth?"



Other planets have stars whose positions approximate their respective celestial poles, but Polaris is currently the "pole star" only for Earth. We wrote 'currently,' because the precession of the equinoxes causes Earth's pole to describe a 47 degree circle through space over an approximately 26,000 year period. Consequently, the North Celestial Pole position migrates through the sky. For instance, 5000 years ago, the North Celestial Pole pointed toward Thuban, star within Draco the Dragon. About 13,000 years from now, the NCP will point toward Vega, the brightest of the three "Summer Triangle" stars. Presently, Polarismarks the general region of the North Celestial Pole for Earth.

The alignment of the NCP with Polaris is just a 'chance' event. Our planet's pole just happens to be directed toward Polaris now. Other planets are 'tilted' toward other directions in the sky. However , because they are all more or less aligned similarly with Earth's pole (save Uranus, which rotates on its side), the other planet's north polar stars are likewise found in our nortnern celestial hemisphere.

We can provide some examples.

Omicron Draconis (a star in Draco the Dragon, a circumpolar constellation for us) is the north polar star on Mercury.

42 Draconis is Venus' north pole star

Sadr and Deneb (the upper two stars marking the tip of the Northern Cross, an asterism within Cygnus the Swan) approximate the position of the North Celestial Pole for Mars

Zeta Draconis is Jupiter's pole star

Saturn NCP is not directed toward any prominent star presently

Uranus, being inclined almost 90 degrees, has a pole oriented toward Orion's "head": region.

Delta Cygni, a star in Cygnus the Swan, is Neptune's pole star

Delta Draconis is Pluto's pole star.

The north poles of a few planets are aligned toward stars within Draco the Dragon. All of these pole stars will eventually change as all planets experience precession, albeit at different rates.

Just an extra note: Earth's South Celestial Pole has a stellar marker as well. It is sigma Octans, a star that is just faint enough (magnitude 5.65) to be visible under only the most favorable conditions. For this reason, the Southern Cross' longer axis is often used instead to direct observers toward the South Celestial Pole.

*Polaris will never precisely mark the NCP. It is drawing closer to it through precessional wobbling. By 2102, it will reach its minimum angular distance of 27 arc-seconds from the North Celestial Pole.

"Is Polaris the north star for all the other planets just like it is for Earth?" | Planetarium | University of Southern Maine

It's something I didn't really appreciate until I started sailing at night, Polaris is very bright and very close to the polar axis (cmon it's enough of a giveaway already without being bang-on!), I use it instead of GPS sometimes

Thuban is a far dimmer star with similar ones close by, it would have been far less useful for navigation, Vega will be quite a bit further away from the axis, not too useful even if we did need it 13k years from now!!

Humans are hardwired to see what they want to see and connect the dots.

It's true, I remember telling a young sailing student that the lake was not there for our use as they thought, but just naturally happened to be there, and we took advantage of it.

I didn't realize at the time that they were right, we were sailing on a reservoir built largely for recreational use.

Point being that the bias works both ways, which assumption is the fallacy depends on which is correct, and we simply don't know that yet.
We grow up in a world surrounded by miracles and hence accept them as 'natural' it's difficult to look at them objectively, but we can : in the mathematics

If a gambler in a casino plays 5 royal flushes in a row, chance is not impossible, nor is it the most likely explanation

We can't use miracles to explain things in science.

Certainly not, I don't believe in the flying spaghetti multiverse, I don't believe the rabbit spontaneously appeared in the hat, even if it may look that way-
I think it was put there on purpose

 

[Jose Fly]

Which seems more likely:
The universe ordered itself for the convenience of yet-to-evolve life forms on an otherwise unremarkable planet.
or
Life evolved on this planet to fit the conditions it found itself in.

In a more broad sense, I think of it as.....By what objective, testable means can we differentiate between a universe that's been designed/created, and one that "just is"?

I've yet to see anyone give a genuinely useful answer.

 

[Bird123]

Hmmm


This would depend if I already had a pre assumption that something that exists must have an origin. In what we know, if there is a home, plumbing, et cetera we'd assume by definition of what we're taught, houses are for shelter. Then you have other people define home as a place where family gathers. A place of family unity.

In nature, there is no "defined origin" because nothing is created. The house wasn't created. The bricks already existed. If I were blank slate, seeing life fresh as it is without human bias, how would I determine if it's just me making the pattern into something that has no pattern or there is a pattern inherent in life regardless of how I label it?

Humans and animals seek patterns. Life, in and of itself, doesn't have a pattern but what we try to make it. The house isn't a house just bricks put on top of each other. It's no different than random bricks on the floor. Those random bricks have pattern too.

Another trick with this is take a sheet of blank paper out and get a marker. Make one medium sized dot. Then make another dot. Then the third dot, try to make it random that it does not organize itself with the other dots. If you can get to five dots without any connection that's good. If you can get to ten, that's better. Even in the smallest, our brains are hardwired to find patterns so we can predict what will happen and it also keeps us safe by extracting things we already know to interpret events around us.

That's how we "create god." We naturally find patterns around us, and because we can make dots with patterns unintentionally, there has to be a creator that can do the same with random elements of nature.

It's an assumption based on our brains to find pattern. However, life's randomness isn't defined by how we interpret life. So, the closest we can get is life does not pop into thin air and nothing disappears. Nothing is created. Man hasn't figured out how to bring things from nothing or make matter disappear; so, it's all assumptions.



Since it's an assumption and life isn't created but form from by action of already existing elements, intelligence would need to define an action not an origin or creator.

There was a question maybe you can answer:

Can you explain that to me by how I can see a building and conclude the building itself (the actual blocks) did not exist until I started putting it together?

The house wasn't created as I put the bricks together, since the bricks already existed. When you say something is created, how is it created when I first started putting the house together from what was already present?

Is there another word beside creation one can use?​

A mother and father didn't create a child. The egg already existed. The sperm already existed. They had sex and between egg and sperm, it formed a child just as bricks put together form a building.

I wouldn't call life creation but since we're in a god-living environment, I can't think of another word.



We can discover the house without attributing it to the builder. The builder didn't create the house (the actual pieces), he just created the design and put one brick on the other in an organized fashion.

He formed the house not created it.

Maybe creator isn't a good term for the formation of life and the universe beyond earth. I like the word active spirit of life.

Also, I find it odd to refer to the creator as a person. Since we are people, I assume it's based on a reflection of ourselves to understand the relationship of origin of life and the result of it. Outside of us, how would one explain it.

I find you bias. One can not assume a creator, however one should not assume there is no creator. When one is seeking Real Truth one must be open for all possibilities even those possibilities one does not want to be true.

Evidence of intelligence is all around us. Take the house with the plumbing, windows and furniture. There is evidence of intelligence by which an explorer can learn.

Random chance can stumble on forming something, however random chance creation is limited by time. Based on the age of the universe, random chance starts to have problems forming what exists today.

Operating systems have complexity. There is evidence of intelligence in their method and operation. One can learn through Understanding these processes. One can learn about the designer and the manufacturing process.

If we wipe everything away and get down to the very basics. The universe is nothing but energy on a time platform. Is there evidence of intelligence? You bet! Just like a caveman finding a car, there are complexity of systems that have purpose and design by which one can learn.

Learning and discovering leads to your answers. Feel free to keep the assumption that God does not exist. God is the sum of all knowledge. AS your knowledge increases so will your understanding. You will be walking toward God so it does not matter what you believe. It only matters what you Discover.

Perhaps the only crime would be if one forms a set of beliefs then becomes content to discover nothing. This is running from reality. I find that Understanding is the answer not escape.

OK, by discovering the universe one can learn the answers. There is much to learn, however there is so much more to the equation. We are Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this. Suddenly, creation has so many more questions that need answers. Spiritual answers are much harder to discover based on the physical laws of this universe. Where is the interface? I know the interface connection is in the brain, however where is the interface between the universe and the Spiritual? I think at the quantum level yet I too have much to discover.

Everyone forms conclusions based on their knowledge and experience. Each is on their own journey to discovery. I'm afraid with so much to discover, it's going to take a lot of time. Still, since everyone holds a different view, one might find a new direction by which one can walk forward on the road to discovery.

 

[shawn001]

It's something I didn't really appreciate until I started sailing at night, Polaris is very bright and very close to the polar axis (cmon it's enough of a giveaway already without being bang-on!), I use it instead of GPS sometimes

Thuban is a far dimmer star with similar ones close by, it would have been far less useful for navigation, Vega will be quite a bit further away from the axis, not too useful even if we did need it 13k years from now!!



It's true, I remember telling a young sailing student that the lake was not there for our use as they thought, but just naturally happened to be there, and we took advantage of it.

I didn't realize at the time that they were right, we were sailing on a reservoir built largely for recreational use.

Point being that the bias works both ways, which assumption is the fallacy depends on which is correct, and we simply don't know that yet.
We grow up in a world surrounded by miracles and hence accept them as 'natural' it's difficult to look at them objectively, but we can : in the mathematics

If a gambler in a casino plays 5 royal flushes in a row, chance is not impossible, nor is it the most likely explanation




Certainly not, I don't believe in the flying spaghetti multiverse, I don't believe the rabbit spontaneously appeared in the hat, even if it may look that way-
I think it was put there on purpose

"I think it was put there on purpose"

Nothing wrong with that really. It's in our nature to look for purpose.

No one can actually answer the question though and humans don't like that especially with the "biggest question" and it hard to say "I don't know the answer to the question" and it make's human's feel better to think they have a purpose as an answer to the question probably through evolution.

 

[shawn001]

I find you bias. One can not assume a creator, however one should not assume there is no creator. When one is seeking Real Truth one must be open for all possibilities even those possibilities one does not want to be true.

Evidence of intelligence is all around us. Take the house with the plumbing, windows and furniture. There is evidence of intelligence by which an explorer can learn.

Random chance can stumble on forming something, however random chance creation is limited by time. Based on the age of the universe, random chance starts to have problems forming what exists today.

Operating systems have complexity. There is evidence of intelligence in their method and operation. One can learn through Understanding these processes. One can learn about the designer and the manufacturing process.

If we wipe everything away and get down to the very basics. The universe is nothing but energy on a time platform. Is there evidence of intelligence? You bet! Just like a caveman finding a car, there are complexity of systems that have purpose and design by which one can learn.

Learning and discovering leads to your answers. Feel free to keep the assumption that God does not exist. God is the sum of all knowledge. AS your knowledge increases so will your understanding. You will be walking toward God so it does not matter what you believe. It only matters what you Discover.

Perhaps the only crime would be if one forms a set of beliefs then becomes content to discover nothing. This is running from reality. I find that Understanding is the answer not escape.

OK, by discovering the universe one can learn the answers. There is much to learn, however there is so much more to the equation. We are Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this. Suddenly, creation has so many more questions that need answers. Spiritual answers are much harder to discover based on the physical laws of this universe. Where is the interface? I know the interface connection is in the brain, however where is the interface between the universe and the Spiritual? I think at the quantum level yet I too have much to discover.

Everyone forms conclusions based on their knowledge and experience. Each is on their own journey to discovery. I'm afraid with so much to discover, it's going to take a lot of time. Still, since everyone holds a different view, one might find a new direction by which one can walk forward on the road to discovery.

I hold the view if there is ANY evidence of what created the Big Bang's origin's I would like to see it. Time as far as we know stops and perhaps doesn't exist.

With that said it regards to design and a designer, why did said designer make a universe that goes from the most order to the least order and in the process we evolved? Which goes back to your house analogy in reverse.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I find you bias. One can not assume a creator, however one should not assume there is no creator. When one is seeking Real Truth one must be open for all possibilities even those possibilities one does not want to be true.

Yes. We are all bias. That is why believers see a creator and others do not.

Think about the logic in it. If someone came to me and said "there is a man name Zelu living on Mars with his Jeep looking up at the stars", I'd say "Um okay..." I would not believe him giving the bias (my knowledge of how I interpret the world) it does not make sense. If a thousand people believe this, wrote down what Zelu said, and so forth, that does not make the claim any more true. If people see miracles that Mars exist when they have a dream, that does not tell me the claim is true. None of these things tell me a claim is true regardless if thousands of people believe in it and it's written on marble or gold.

Likewise with the creator.

I wasn't raised knowing there is a creator. I literally did not hear and understand it at all until five years ago today. My childhood had nothing to do with that.

So, if someone came up to me if I hadn't met my Catholic friend and said "god exists he is the creator" that's the same as telling me Zelu exists on mars.

"But thousands of people believe in him... .people have seen him... and so forth."

That does not make the claim anymore true and it doesn't make the claim worth my investigating. I have no interest to this day of figuring out there is a creator. It's not in my noggin.

So what you are telling me is your belief based on your bias (which is healthy) and what you know from your experiences. Truth? Yours yes, The Truth, no.

That and are you open to possibilities that anything can be true even the fact god may not exist at all? Are you open to everything you believe is an illusion?

These are possibilities. If they are not true to you, how would you be open to them unless you're like me and see things in multiple perspectives.

Evidence of intelligence is all around us. Take the house with the plumbing, windows and furniture. There is evidence of intelligence by which an explorer can learn.

If I were a blank slate (had no bias), that would not make sense. I would see things as they are not as we, as humans, define them to be. Nature isn't intelligent. That's not even a word I'd identify with nature but with humans. A house just means a building in which one finds shelter. A home or place of rest. If I knew nothing of this, I would value the home itself not wonder who built it. That wouldn't be in my frame of reference if I were in the cold and needed a place to stay.

Random chance can stumble on forming something, however random chance creation is limited by time. Based on the age of the universe, random chance starts to have problems forming what exists today.

What is wrong with random?

To nature, everything works as it should. It looks random to us and it's not. It just is. Once you define it, it's a human label and concept. It doesn't reflect reality just what we observe of it from the knowledge we already know and our personal biases.

Life is random. That's something many people can't handle. It's annoying you plan something and all of the sudden, something goes wrong when you've been planning all week for it to be right. Life isn't planned. We can't limit life like that.

Operating systems have complexity. There is evidence of intelligence in their method and operation. One can learn through Understanding these processes. One can learn about the designer and the manufacturing process.

Operating systems are built by humans. Human brains have the tendency to find connection and relationship with things, ideas, etc so they know what to expect. It's for safety and protection among other things.

Why would you want to know about the designer? If the designer was millions of miles away and I only had the assumption that there is an designer, why would I break my back over learning about the designer as if the building is the designer herself?

If we wipe everything away and get down to the very basics. The universe is nothing but energy on a time platform. Is there evidence of intelligence? You bet! Just like a caveman finding a car, there are complexity of systems that have purpose and design by which one can learn.

"The universe is nothing but..." it's more than that. We don't have to belittle the universe because there is no creator. If anything, we see life as sacred as it is not how we want it to be. It helps people, yes. That does not make it true in life just to the people who need that comfort that there is a builder rather than just appreciating the building and the warmth that building provides.

Learning and discovering leads to your answers. Feel free to keep the assumption that God does not exist. God is the sum of all knowledge. AS your knowledge increases so will your understanding. You will be walking toward God so it does not matter what you believe. It only matters what you Discover.

It's not an assumption. It's a fact. God is not an entity. The definition of god to abrahamics does not coincide how reality works. It's from humans. There is nothing wrong with that.

I just wish someone can have a good conversation with me about god coming from him being defined by humans. People either put down god because they don't believe in him or they elevate god as if believing in him is better than believing in anything else. Two sides of the coin.

Just wish I had a conversation of how god works. A good book on that, Why do We Believe in God(s)? . It's not an evolution book. It goes through the psychological and cultural reasons why people believe in gods and how it makes sense to their well being.

Perhaps the only crime would be if one forms a set of beliefs then becomes content to discover nothing. This is running from reality. I find that Understanding is the answer not escape.

OK, by discovering the universe one can learn the answers. There is much to learn, however there is so much more to the equation. We are Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this. Suddenly, creation has so many more questions that need answers. Spiritual answers are much harder to discover based on the physical laws of this universe. Where is the interface? I know the interface connection is in the brain, however where is the interface between the universe and the Spiritual? I think at the quantum level yet I too have much to discover.

Why do you need answers? Why not just live in the spirit and die in the spirit?

I'm already exhausted trying to write the answers to my exam, trying to make up questions as if they have some key to the answers of life is silly. There is no answers to life.

That is my experience. When I found out my experiences come from me, how I think, and how I interpret the world, when I experience spirits, hear my grandmothers speak to me, and act in the spirit, I know the origin of my belief and how it benefits me and others. I can utilize this without needing faith because the knowledge is all I need. I don't need to ask questions because the answers are right here.

Everyone forms conclusions based on their knowledge and experience. Each is on their own journey to discovery. I'm afraid with so much to discover, it's going to take a lot of time. Still, since everyone holds a different view, one might find a new direction by which one can walk forward on the road to discovery.

That is why it's false to assume that anyone who says god does not exist is wrong. Based on my conclusions, knowledge, and experience I know god does not exist. I know the spirit of christ does. I know my grandmothers and family in spirit do. I know when you die your spirit will exist.

God, an entity, doesn't work that way. That, and god of abraham doesn't have the monopoly over other creators and god(s) in each respective religions that believe in god(s).

 

[godnotgod]

LOL, You can't omit looking at them.

Now I will use your TV analogy. If you don't get a signal to the TV, does the TV produce images of the Sun and Moon on its own?

When you are asleep, or inside a dwelling, you do not see the Sun or moon, but you are conscious. Where does your consciousness leave off, and the Sun and moon begin?

Are you having difficulty understanding the question?

 

[godnotgod]

"The geese, flying over the still pond, do not intend to cast their shadows, nor does the pond intend to reflect them"

From Zen

 

[ArtieE]

Remember our baby, who has no sense of self until around 13 months? Until then, his, or hers, is just consciousness, without any 'my' consciousness attached.

"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester."
When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita,
If you truly want answers to your questions, you MUST go to the only source of truth, God's Bible, which, in fact He was the author, 2Timothy 3:16,17.
You are correct in your statement about life coming from life. Scientists have proven that abiogenesis is impossible.
Scientists have also proven that there is a cause for everything, and the Bible tells us that God was the first cause. The Personal, Proper Name of the only true God, is Jehovah, in English. The name, Jehovah means, He causes to become, Exodus 6:2,3, 3:13-15. The first verse in the Bible Genesis 1:1, tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. The Bible also tells us that Jesus was the very First of God's creation, Colossians 1:12-15, Revelation 3:14. After Jesus was created, he helped in the creation of all other things, Colossians 1:16,17. The Bible actually says that things were created for Jesus and through Jesus, Colossians 1:6,17, 1Corinthians 8:5,6, Hebrews 1:2. So God was the first Cause, Jesus was the second Cause, and so on. Because God has always existed, He is credited with doing all things, making all things. Consider Hebrews 3:3-6.
God is the source of life, all life came from Jehovah God, Psalms 36:9, Acts 17:23-31.
As for evolution, is is blasphemy against God who said that He created man, and that man would only reproduce, After his own Kind, just as all creation would, Genesis 1:21,24,25,26-28, even all vegetation, Genesis 1:11,12.
The Bible also tells us that everything God purpose, is certain to come true, Isaiah 55:11, 14:26-27. God did not make the earth for nothing, but for it to be inhabited forever by mankind, Isaiah 45:18, Psalms 37:28,28, Proverbs 2:21,22.
Agape!!!

The Bible is not an authority in my life. If your source is the True/Factual, it can be supported without scripture and not referring to scriptures as well.

That been said, going by logic not by quotes from scripture, nothing is created and nothing just disappears. Everything forms and recycles. We are not special.

Scientist from what I know just theorized that the origin of life is a combination of already existent gases and rocks in the universe. The heat/energy made these things combine and collide creating planets with water and such. We can't survive without water, we are made up of liquid, and that is where (according to studies I found at our museum) we come from water-something I was taught even before I saw it on the show case. I was shocked. Our planet is more water than land.

The First Cause, if you like, has no name. It just means origin of something. What came first. It's not biblical.

The First Cause could be a force. It could be heat and energy. It could be anything, really. Though, I don't agree life had a first cause. My question is about intelligent design. If there is a design, how is it intelligent? Or is that redundant?

You say evolution is blasphemy but then say in the first part of your post scientist support your theory of the bible. It can't be both. You can't have somehing you call blesphamy support the bible.

Also,

God is the source of life, all life came from Jehovah God, Psalms 36:9, Acts 17:23-31.​

If I used the term god, I would say god IS life. God did not create life. God is not the origin of life. God has no name. God is not a who.

Making energy or a First Cause a who is pretty creepy.

Intelligent design, though, is sometimes inchanged with the word god. Though, in my OP, I don't see how.

If I were a blank slate and not influenced by god-believers and peopel telling me thei truth as if they defined life on their own, and saw a building, I'd assume it's just blocks put together. There is no purpose in and of itself.

I create the purpose.

How? If I'm cold, I can go into the house warm myself from the cold and heavy weather. Why would I, as a blank slate, wonder if there was any person or alien who build the house?

I mean, if I didn't know my biological parents and my adopted parent, in analogy, raised me, my biological parents would not mean much to me regardless that they are my parents. They didn't raise me.

The warmth of the house and the care of the adopted parent are the ones who we should focus on not the assumed builder and the biological parents who are strangers to us since birth.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"I think it was put there on purpose"

Nothing wrong with that really. It's in our nature to look for purpose.

No one can actually answer the question though and humans don't like that especially with the "biggest question" and it hard to say "I don't know the answer to the question" and it make's human's feel better to think they have a purpose as an answer to the question probably through evolution.

Some us us acknowledge personal faith in our beliefs, we do not claim undeniable fact with such inherently speculative things,

Dawkins: Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact

and hence we do not consider ourselves intellectual superior to those with beliefs different than our own

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked...

We are all taking our best guess, we are all interested in the truth, I assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, at the very least it makes for a more interesting substantive discussion!

 

[godnotgod]

"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester."
When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?

Oh, boy! Now we know all about consciousness.

This describes characteristics of consciousness, but not of the development of a sense of 'self', which doesn't occur until around the 13th month.

So until then, the baby does not differentiate between 'mine' in here, and 'yours' over there. This is the default state prior to when Identification sets in, which is developed via social input processed by the brain, the body, and the psyche. As indoctrinated adults, we have come to see the world in a subject/object split that says we are conscious over here, and the Universe is not-conscious 'out there'.

Are you sure all that you have described is not a function of consciousness, that consciousness creates and programs brains, and not the other way around, as you have it presented? We now know via studies, for example, that long-term meditators actually grow thicker cortexes than non-meditators. Consciousness grows the brain. Brain pre-programming makes sense. Our primitive ancestors would have wanted all of the autonomic functions of the body to be in the background, while consciousness focuses up front on what is immediately present, like a tiger lurking about, for example.

Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | HuffPost