The Debate of God.

[Tiberius]

Now this is starting to sound weird............

Nothing exists , it's all chemicals.

DNA is God!

Who made DNA though?

God did.

What in the world are you talking about?

I am saying that if that is what you believe, embrace it fully.

Instead of a vague mystical notion like 'love', be scientific and say " my mother formed a strong oxytocic bond with me which causes her to value my existence".

Are you serious? Do you say, "Could you please activate the binary switch on the wall in order to send an electron flow to the tungsten filament sealed in a glass bulb in order to make it heat upo enough to emit photons in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum," or do you just say, "Could you turn on the light?"

And should you be present at the birth of your child, remember it is just a bag of chemicals, no more than a smart mousetrap after all.

No smarter than a mouse trap? Then how did you get so smart?

As the child grows, don't confuse it with notions of love, which are as vague and meaningless as ideas of god ( in fact many of those mad believers say 'god is love').

Love is detectable by measuring the chemical changes in the brain which cause the emotions.

Remember that the only reason you want your child to survive is that you have been conditioned by chemical rewards to value the multiplication of certain specific combinations of amino acids. Nothing personal, because ultimately there is no person.

Now you;re just being stupid. The rest of your post is equally stupid, so I am not going to reply.

It was guided into existence by God/The Force.

Oh naughty, Martin! I thought I told you not to present your subjective opinion as objective fact! Now, if you can provide some actual TESTABLE EVIDENCE, then I'd be willing to look at it, but I don't think you have a shred of anything to support your claim that DNA was guided into existence by the force.

Why did DNA even bother to form itself in the first place if there were no reason.

You do realise that DNA is not sentient, don't you? You might as well ask why rain falls if it doesn't want to be on the ground.

There are plenty of anomalies within evolution and abiogenesis that indicate Design.

Such as...?

 

[Daviso452]

He never learns, dude.

 

[apophenia]

You do realise that DNA is not sentient, don't you? You might as well ask why rain falls if it doesn't want to be on the ground.

And attributing a survival urge to inanimate matter suggests the rain wants to fall.

 

[apophenia]

Chemicals or not, I still have feelings.

So chemicals have 'feelings' .... hmmmm

And that makes sense because the 'feelings' are caused by chemicals ?

Circular non-argument.

Basically, I am a humanist. Ever heard of that?

Yeah, I used to describe myself as a humanist until I realized that speciocentricity is driving the destruction of the global ecosystem.

 

[Orias]

I am simply going to use this thread as a means to discuss the existence of God with anyone. I am constantly discussing this with people, and feel I should have a main thread to post on.

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

Alright.

God is true since he is a manifestation of topics and the things that posit people.

And by that I mean he is an evocation, which can partake in many different variations and split upbringings.

God is true because he is not.

Unless you were referring to the Christian God, then I'm out.

 

[Daviso452]

So chemicals have 'feelings' .... hmmmm

And that makes sense because the 'feelings' are caused by chemicals ?

Circular non-argument.


Yeah, I used to describe myself as a humanist until I realized that speciocentricity is driving the destruction of the global ecosystem.

First point; I never said chemicals have feelings. I said that our feelings are just chemicals.

Second point; Never though of it that way. Well, I've realized our destruction of the ecosystem, but I never connected it with speciocentricity (not quite sure if that is a real word though). I agree on that point.

EDIT: You seem to just be slashing at me apophenia. What did I do to you? What about our awareness discussion? If you felt I was being unreasonable and wanted to stop just say so dude.

 

[Daviso452]

Alright.

God is true since he is a manifestation of topics and the things that posit people.

And by that I mean he is an evocation, which can partake in many different variations and split upbringings.

God is true because he is not.

Unless you were referring to the Christian God, then I'm out.

I see this argument as more of god is a real idea/concept. What I'm debating is God as a person.

 

[Orias]

I see this argument as more of god is a real idea/concept. What I'm debating is God as a person.

Would you defy my existence as God then?

 

[apophenia]

First point; I never said chemicals have feelings. I said that our feelings are just chemicals.

Second point; Never though of it that way. Well, I've realized our destruction of the ecosystem, but I never connected it with speciocentricity (not quite sure if that is a real word though). I agree on that point.

EDIT: You seem to just be slashing at me apophenia. What did I do to you? What about our awareness discussion? If you felt I was being unreasonable and wanted to stop just say so dude.

First off - I am definitely not slashing at you. I appreciate the debate and respect your position. I was, and am, quite happy for you to message me. I am enjoying the direction and quality of the argument.

I am simply being as rigorous and determined as you. And I mean what I'm saying.

This idea of 'feelings' is precisely an extension of our debate on awareness.

I am making what I consider to be a relevant and cogent point - if we are only chemicals (and that is the position you have taken) then it is a circular argument to say that our feelings are caused by chemicals.

Unless all chemicals are sentient to some degree.

That is just a logical neccessity of your position.

 

[apophenia]

Also, my remark about humanism/speciocentricity was straight up truth about my attitude, not some kind of dis.

 

[Daviso452]

First off - I am definitely not slashing at you. I appreciate the debate and respect your position. I was, and am, quite happy for you to message me. I am enjoying the direction and quality of the argument.

I am simply being as rigorous and determined as you. And I mean what I'm saying.

This idea of 'feelings' is precisely an extension of our debate on awareness.

I am making what I consider to be a relevant and cogent point - if we are only chemicals (and that is the position you have taken) then it is a circular argument to say that our feelings are caused by chemicals.

Unless all chemicals are sentient to some degree.

That is just a logical neccessity of your position.

It is not a circular argument. It is the same argument. We, and our feelings, are chemicals. That is what we are made of.

A circular argument means one explains the other. How does "our emotions being made of chemicals" explain "our bodies are made of chemicals"?

It doesn't. Like I said, it is the argument. We are made of chemicals, therefore our emotions are chemicals. Not vice versa.

 

[apophenia]

I see this argument as more of god is a real idea/concept. What I'm debating is God as a person.

This may help to clarify what a lot of people mean by god - god is the difference between a collection of inanimate molecules and a person.

 

[Daviso452]

This may help to clarify what a lot of people mean by god - god is the difference between a collection of inanimate molecules and a person.

I'm already getting confused. Let's leave that for a different thread. Agreed?

 

[Orias]

I see this argument as more of god is a real idea/concept. What I'm debating is God as a person.

Alright let me try this...

A person is a real idea/concept yet they actually are. A label exists through conception and evocation, making them an actuality.

Unicorns don't "exist" in "real-life" but when I draw a "unicorn" on paper in real life it "exits" on "paper" in real life. A unicorn does not exist in "real life", but the label exists regardless of how occupied its truth is.

 

[Daviso452]

Alright let me try this...

A person is a real idea/concept yet they actually are. A label exists through conception and evocation, making them an actuality.

Unicorns don't "exist" in "real-life" but when I draw a "unicorn" on paper in real life it "exits" on "paper" in real life. A unicorn does not exist in "real life", but the label exists regardless of how occupied its truth is.

I see. Many people assign the term "god" as having truth behind its existence in real life. That is what I am debating against.

 

[apophenia]

It is not a circular argument. It is the same argument. We, and our feelings, are chemicals. That is what we are made of.

A circular argument means one explains the other. How does "our emotions being made of chemicals" explain "our bodies are made of chemicals"?

It doesn't. Like I said, it is the argument. We are made of chemicals, therefore our emotions are chemicals. Not vice versa.

As much as you may not want to admit this, you are effectively saying that matter is innately conscious. Which may be true !

The fine line you draw to avoid saying that outright is that it requires a certain (undefined) complex collection of inanimate matter for it to become animate.(phew !)

And I am saying that that is speculation, with no science to back it up.

There is a missing link between inanimate and animate in our scientific model.

That has been my point all along.

And the usual hocus pocus used to explain that missing link is 'emergent behaviour'.

I am taking the time to point out that 'emergent behaviour' is just two clever words.

If you look closely enough you will see that 'scientific' models have only that vague speculative notion to explain why a bunch of molecules feel better than James Brown !

BTW ... if asked why you (a bunch of chemicals) have feelings (sentience) and your answer is - chemicals ! - that is most definitely a circular argument.

The unanswered question would then be - why does a specific combination of chemicals worry about pimples ? LOL

Have a listen to "I pity inanimate objects" by Godley and Creme if you can find it. After this dialogue I think you will appreciate it.

 

[Orias]

I see. Many people assign the term "god" as having truth behind its existence in real life. That is what I am debating against.

You keep changing what you are debating about so I am having a hard time determining your goal here and the solidity and the sincerity of this thread.

Like I said, labels exists regardless of their occupation of truth and in turn affect everyone that recognizes so simply because labels are born with prerogative. Labels are designed to affect and evoke translation and expression making its existence in "real-life" more than true because when you speak you are doing so with meaning, unless the point is to avoid, move goal posts, and change meaning and elevate the priority of semantics.

What is applicable is practical, thus making its foundations set beyond "theory" as far out as "theory" can relate to the humanly position.

Everything is a theory, even a theory.

 

[Tiberius]

And attributing a survival urge to inanimate matter suggests the rain wants to fall.

You aren't making any sense at all.

There is no conscious will or desire on the part of the rain to fall to the ground. The water droplets are simply following the laws of nature.

Likewise, DNA does not "bother" to form itself into the long chain we find in our cells. It does so simply because that is what the laws of nature make it do. DNA is not "trying" to do anything.

 

[Tiberius]

This may help to clarify what a lot of people mean by god - god is the difference between a collection of inanimate molecules and a person.

God is not what makes a collection of molecules into a person. There is nothing magical about rain drops falling, and likewise there is nothing magical about the arrangement of molecules in a person from forming a person. It's just a result of the way they have come together. That's all.

As much as you may not want to admit this, you are effectively saying that matter is innately conscious. Which may be true !.

Consciousness is not formed from matter, it is formed from the INTERACTIONS between the many cells and molecules.

 

[apophenia]

You aren't making any sense at all.

There is no conscious will or desire on the part of the rain to fall to the ground. The water droplets are simply following the laws of nature.

Likewise, DNA does not "bother" to form itself into the long chain we find in our cells. It does so simply because that is what the laws of nature make it do. DNA is not "trying" to do anything.

Yet you do have a conscious will. And, according to you, you are nothing more than those molecules.

Ipso facto, you are stating that molecules have will and sentience.