The Debate of God.

[idav]

yes but we are talking a time when life first began, not a progression in mammals

It is all relevant. The awareness of reptiles, birds, plants and anything living is in question.

Im not sure. is there anything missing with that list?

That is more than most organisms have.

they dont have a brain. They have a processor that takes information fed to it, it them computes what it is told exactly and nothing more.

Is a brain necessary. What about a jellyfish?

your trying to put life into something that doesnt have 1 piece in it that is a mytstery.

I'm not trying to put life into computers. I'm talking about awareness. Your saying we have to make a computer alive yet basic organism have life and not really significant awareness?

but your question isnt one of theism, religion or not makes no difference on this one.

It depends. Like apophenia eluding to everything having awareness where as a non-spiritualist would say awareness is really nowhere until complexity is reached.

computers are dead but. they have no counscious. The best fastest computer in the world like the one used in Jepardy that beat the people. Had to be programmed to think like us and still falters at questions that require certain thinking skills a child can figure out.

I like that Jeopardy computer but yeah your right. But I'm not talking about reaching AI. We can certainly program a computer to have the consciousness of a turnip so where is the issue between being an organism that came from nature vs an organism that was designed by man. I see your referring to computers as dead yet they are powered and animate. It is like an argument saying that we cannot achieve life through machines yet we already build machine cells.

 

[outhouse]

The awareness of reptiles, birds, plants and anything living is in question.

how so?

are you giving everything a spirit?

or just confusing the level of awareness in a plant?

Is a brain necessary. What about a jellyfish?

excellent question, I study marine biology

they have nerves in there tissue that sense what to touch. they do not have a counscious that can be compared to ours, or any sense of a conscious awareness. There are a few examples of jellyfish riding tides which may indicate a very very low level of awareness but not a counscious like a mammal and cannot be put in the same context. More along the lines of how plants reach for sun.

I'm talking about awareness.

that is conscious, its a trait among the living only. and not everything that lives.

Your saying we have to make a computer alive

impossible at this time.

yet basic organism have life and not really significant awareness?

yes,

It is like an argument saying that we cannot achieve life through machines yet we already build machine cells.

yet we havnt really created life yet, simular to abiogenesis. we are close. but nut just yet.



My only point is there is little mytsery to being conscious, without the ability to imagine a animal is hiding in the grass to eat you, [awareness] you would not evolve let alone survive the day.

this goes back to the beginning proebably before the spilt of vertabrates and invertabrates

 

[idav]

My only point is there is little mytsery to being conscious, without the ability to imagine a animal is hiding in the grass to eat you, [awareness] you would not evolve let alone survive the day.

this goes back to the beginning proebably before the spilt of vertabrates and invertabrates

I have a few points here. The mystery goes away when we look through the evolution of consciousness. Have a central nervous system is no doubt a key for mammals but isn't the only way to be aware. You mentioned jelly fish have a minute form of awareness and this is where I throw in the term "basic awareness" not to the level that we understand it but at the basic level of a cell there is something going on. The other thing I have is that everything has a purely material explanation, so at the end of the day, even the most comlplex brain is a series of cause and effect, reaction to stimuli etc. which we see in the first single celled organism. We are just a result of trillions of single celled organisms that are able to communicate with a central system so it isn't us that is aware it is our cells, particularly our neurons. When it comes to the basic functionality there is no reason to think that a machine cell is any less aware than a biological cell.

 

[outhouse]

You mentioned jelly fish have a minute form of awareness and this is where I throw in the term "basic awareness" not to the level that we understand it but at the basic level of a cell there is something going on.

whats going on is sense of touch from nerves.

We are just a result of trillions of single celled organisms that are able to communicate with a central system so it isn't us that is aware it is our cells

and they can only communicate through a nervous system.

When it comes to the basic functionality there is no reason to think that a machine cell is any less aware than a biological cell.

Wrong, dead wrong.

there is no such thing as a machine cell.


a machine lacks thouands of biological things we take for granted.

 

[outhouse]

the less knowledge one has, the more imagination is used to explain things. Its how mythology was started and according to me, how man created gods.

 

[idav]

whats going on is sense of touch from nerves.

Sensory perception is very essence of percieving the environment. Without it we wouldn't have come very far evolutionary.

and they can only communicate through a nervous system.

They just have to be connected to be able to communicate, doesn't matter how.

Wrong, dead wrong.

there is no such thing as a machine cell.


a machine lacks thouands of biological things we take for granted.

Sorry I mispoke. I was referring the the metal cell thread and they called them "inorganic cells" and it is debateable whether they are life.

 

[idav]

the less knowledge one has, the more imagination is used to explain things. Its how mythology was started and according to me, how man created gods.

I agree and I'm trying to use as little speculation as possible based on whatever current knowledge we have. People are so eager to say we can't create life yet everything we know is based on materialistic principles that can and will be replicated and no need to find the infamous soul to make it life.

 

[Daviso452]

What are you guys even debating about? I thought we were all in agreement with each other.

Let's get off this subject of awareness and move on to another topic.

So, besides awareness, does anyone believe there is something that is impossible for science to prove or explain? I seriously want to talk to people who have this belief; this is a debate section after all.

P.S. There is a difference between calling some one on their nonsensical words, which entails saying they are wrong and why, and just saying a person is just wrong without reason or explanation.

 

[Tiberius]

I'd like to make a slight change to what you said there, Daviso.

Does anyone believe there is something that is impossible for science to prove or explain that can be shown to be something more than fantasy?

 

[outhouse]

I'd like to make a slight change to what you said there, Daviso.

Does anyone believe there is something that is impossible for science to prove or explain that can be shown to be something more than fantasy?

there plenty lol

but we need to clarify science doesnt prove anything, they just report observations.



unexplained, try dowsing. I dont buy the ideomotor effect as a valid explanation.

 

[Daviso452]

Science observes, explains, and in some cases, proves. Is there anything where science cannot do any of these things?

 

[idav]

Science observes, explains, and in some cases, proves. Is there anything where science cannot do any of these things?

I think so but not without the help of math.

 

[Daviso452]

I feel that's a postulate. When some one thinks of science they usually also think of math. However that is not necessarily vice versa. In some cases it is, but fewer than the first.

 

[Daviso452]

You know what I'm going to change the subject, and you guys are welcome to invite people to the thread:
Why do you believe in whatever higher power/god/deity that you believe in?
Do you have evidence to support the force is real?
Do you think that no evidence is needed to prove the force is real?
Just give a basic explanation and we'll go from there.

Atheists please do not reply. At least not until we have a theist willing to talk first.

 

[idav]

If science ever proves anything it definitely needs math but yes it's true math is a fundamental tool.

 

[TheReligionofFour]

News flash, energy can't be destroyed or created, therefore by logic and science law, there HAD to be a supernatural "creator.

Bye atheists.

 

[TheReligionofFour]

If science ever proves anything it definitely needs math but yes it's true math is a fundamental tool.

False, it does not need math, like the example I just give, science has a law that energy cannot be created/destroyed.

Where is the math in that? It's proven, no math needed, just logic.

Proof of God under everyone's noses, Atheists just don't think hard enough

 

[Daviso452]

News flash, energy can't be destroyed or created, therefore by logic and science law, there HAD to be a supernatural "creator.

Bye atheists.

What if the universe is eternal?

 

[TheReligionofFour]

Then the universe itself is supernatural.

That's why some people refer to that special "force" as the cosmos.

 

[TheReligionofFour]

It's the same thing Daviso, the universe being eternal, God being eternal, same thing, they surpass the logic of nature, making them obviously supernatural, and still leading to my point of having faith if it affects you somehow while being so small in the universe, makign them a worthy God of our appreciation.

Have you had interesting "circumstances"? I'm sure you have, but do you have faith in the wonder of this Supernatural deity? Thats up to you.