The Debate of God.

[9Westy9]

Let's say Bob and Tom are family members. Bob loves Tom. Tom merely acts as if he loves Bob to reap the benefits of love selfishly.

Bob would willingly die for Tom. Tom would not do the same for Bob. In a dangerous world, does evolution favor actual love or hypocrisy? Evolution clearly favors the being who will act selfishly.

How does our chief ideal, love, which values selflessness above all things come to be from a system which values selfishness?

Wrong. The person who acts selfishly will be at a disadvantage if all his close allies die. It's the same reason that wolves hunt and live in a pack

 

[Tiberius]

Thought experiments tend to be extreme cases. To figure out what is real, you must address all situations big and small, mundane and extreme.

So why did you use an extreme case to illustrate your point? Intentionally introducing bias?

 

[Prophet]

So why did you use an extreme case to illustrate your point? Intentionally introducing bias?

I make my "extreme" case to highlight the actual physical mechanics of how evolution shapes the traits of species and to contrast this with an inconsistent personified view of evolution highlighted here by a few debaters designed to make it capable of explaining our moral drive.

My example brings the fact that evolution is driven by survival to the forefront. It is sad that I must constantly reiterate the impersonal manner in which evolution works for alleged followers of science to prevent them from making evolution their god.

 

[Tiberius]

I make my "extreme" case to highlight the actual physical mechanics of how evolution shapes the traits of species and to contrast this with an inconsistent personified view of evolution highlighted here by a few debaters designed to make it capable of explaining our moral drive.

My example brings the fact that evolution is driven by survival to the forefront. It is sad that I must constantly reiterate the impersonal manner in which evolution works for alleged followers of science to prevent them from making evolution their god.

Despite the fact that your example applies only to a small minority of cases and that amongst social creatures such as ourselves a degree of altruism is very beneficial?

I can give examples from the animal kingdom if you;d like.

 

[Prophet]

Perhaps I could give you an example from the animal kingdom of how evolution works.

Let's say we have a light breed of field mouse that finds itself suddenly trapped in a dark volcanic rock environment teeming with predators that hunt by sight. When these mice reproduce there's going to be a variance in the pigmentation of their offspring. Over many generations you will see the mean color of the mouse darken to the same color as the volcanic rock because the lighter breeds get killed off by predators. Evolution does not prefer one color to another. Evolution had no need to "care" about the survival of the entire species when it changed white mice to black. Over a large aggregate, the individuals that were better suited for survival passed on their traits.

Yet, somehow these alleged followers of science think that evolution somehow "cares" about the survival of the human race and that is how love came about. I leave it to you to explain to me what the evolutionary advantage was for the first being to die for love. The entire survival advantage you perceive is that of being loved rather than actually loving.

Think of Bob and Tom as two mice in the field. Bob would give up his life to save Tom. Tom would not give up his life to save Bob. Which mouse is most likely to produce offspring?

 

[9Westy9]

Perhaps I could give you an example from the animal kingdom of how evolution works.

Let's say we have a light breed of field mouse that finds itself suddenly trapped in a dark volcanic rock environment teeming with predators that hunt by sight. When these mice reproduce there's going to be a variance in the pigmentation of their offspring. Over many generations you will see the mean color of the mouse darken to the same color as the volcanic rock because the lighter breeds get killed off by predators. Evolution does not prefer one color to another. Evolution had no need to "care" about the survival of the entire species when it changed white mice to black. Over a large aggregate, the individuals that were better suited for survival passed on their traits.

Yet, somehow these alleged followers of science think that evolution somehow "cares" about the survival of the human race and that is how love came about. I leave it to you to explain to me what the evolutionary advantage was for the first being to die for love. The entire survival advantage you perceive is that of being loved rather than actually loving.

Think of Bob and Tom as two mice in the field. Bob would give up his life to save Tom. Tom would not give up his life to save Bob. Which mouse is most likely to produce offspring?

Seriously? Where are you getting these ideas? Evolution can't care in any way shape or form. Questions 1) What type of love are we talking about? 2) Who says that evolution cares about humans?

 

[Prophet]

Daviso452 posited (and many echoed) that love was created by evolution to aid in the survival of humans. Now, I do NOT dispute that love (and the ability to understand it) aided greatly in the survival of our race. That much is obvious. What I DO dispute, however, is the hidden, irrational claim that because love has so aided in the shaping of the evolution of our species that it must be a result of it.

I have fully and rationally explained how evolution turns a species from one color to another from the smallest level of the individual to the macro scale of the entire population. I think it is fair to say I have not received the same for these explanations of how love was introduced as a trait to our species, and my thought experiment highlights exactly why: those who give love lower their own survival fitness. The survival benefits are only extended to those who receive love.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Evolution also doesn't care whether people try to paint it incorrectly to push their own irrational agendas. It's neutral like that.

 

[9Westy9]

Daviso452 posited (and many echoed) that love was created by evolution to aid in the survival of humans. Now, I do NOT dispute that love (and the ability to understand it) aided greatly in the survival of our race. That much is obvious. What I DO dispute, however, is the hidden, irrational claim that because love has so aided in the shaping of the evolution of our species that it must be a result of it.

I have fully and rationally explained how evolution turns a species from one color to another from the smallest level of the individual to the macro scale of the entire population. I think it is fair to say I have not received the same for these explanations of how love was introduced as a trait to our species, and my thought experiment highlights exactly why: those who give love lower their own survival fitness. The survival benefits are only extended to those who receive love.

Not in pack/ social animals such as ourselves. We rely on working together to survive.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Daviso452;2789192]I don't think you understood what he was saying. The factory workers did not cause this to happen; it is the mere nature of the flakes themselves. No intervention of intelligence. Just nature having order.

Well I don't think you are looking at the intelligence behind the the effect that takes place in the cornflakes. In short, corn flakes don't make them self, they are made. that's the bottom line. What I think is that there has to be some "consciousness", that governs the Laws of the Universe, and what im trying to get across (my view only) is that we can look at the anything,, anything in this universe and find a well structured system of cause and effect, and also get to a point where we can put mathematical equations to it..

As English is not my first language I dont know how else to explain what my "Theory" is, so to your is yours, and to mine is mine.

"Theories" are the 2nd most farthest thing you can get from assumptions. The 1st is scientific law. Theories have every bit of evidence required to be considered true; there is just one small observation missing. For the big bang, it's the event itself. For evolution, its the billions of years of life being on earth. For gravity, its the actual "thing" that causes it.

Well im not assuming that there is a "Super consciousness" in this Universe, I have a theory as well. Because there is structure in this existence, and everything does what it is meant to do then to me there needs some consciousness behind it, and i just have one small observation missing.

How do you know you are what your spirituality is? How do you know that "spirituality" even exists? I don't consider myself, or most atheists, having spirituality, but we still are who we are. There is little evidence we are more than just what our bodies hold. There is much evidence, however, that we are.

Well spirituality for me means more then just believing in GOD, and is different to other peoples spirituality. For me its nationalism, respect, Love, acceptance and so on...
I know my spirituality exists because i exist and i define my spirituality, and that is who i am. To me this body is just to practice my spirituality, and i see my self as different to this current bodily structure that i have.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

9Westy9;2789165Fine by me :yes:
Does this universe require a governing conciousness? Atoms do what they do, but do they need a governing conscious? laws are here but do they need a governing concious? Just because I can't do this doesn't mean another being/ thing did. If I can't explain something then I leave it at that. I don't say that some super being did. Just my view though, you're entitled to yours as much as I am entitled to mine

That is fine by me, I just don't like the superiority complex that many Atheist have.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Tiberius;2789193]What are you talking about? This is not some process that was invented. It is the way things work. There is no human intervention behind it.

Its obvious you did not get what im trying to say, i don't have any problems with that.
But please don't say that corn flakes and the process of making it was not invented and does not require human intervention, to say that the factory workers are useless is utter disregard for their hard work.

The process requires no mechanism to work - it just requires a mixture of different sized components and vibrations. This can happen in your cornflake box or it can happen in rocks during an earthquake. It was not thought up by anyone!

To me you don't see these things happening as structured and balanced in a way that it all just works together, that is why we are having this conversation. well i wont try to explain any further.
To you **** just happens, to me **** happens for a reason.

Long sentence makes brain bleed.

And why do you seem to think that a scientific theory is just something that a bunch of guys in lab coats thought up after being out all night drinking?

woh.. you know how to read my mind...cool.. man..
:sarcastic

You seem to have very little knowledge about science, and you seem to be incapable of recognising an analogy.

OMG uve done it again.... are you .....GOD...... :sarcastic

 

[9Westy9]

That is fine by me, I just don't like the superiority complex that many Atheist have.

I prefer to be called a sceptic rather than an atheist. It's more accurate and tells you more about my beliefs

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That is fine by me, I just don't like the superiority complex that many Atheist have.

I don't like the way theists overgeneralize.

 

[Prophet]

Evolution also doesn't care whether people try to paint it incorrectly to push their own irrational agendas. It's neutral like that.

Calling me irrational with no rational grounds is the equivalent of shouting "NO U".

Thank you for your invaluable addition to this debate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Calling me irrational with no rational grounds is the equivalent of shouting "NO U".

Thank you for your invaluable addition to this debate.

Good thing I have rational grounds.

And, you're welcome. I will continue to provide invaluable insight and wisdom to these "debates."

 

[Prophet]

Not in pack/ social animals such as ourselves. We rely on working together to survive.

Bob and Tom are wolves from the same pack. Wolf Bob would willingly die for Wolf Tom, but Wolf Tom wouldn't be willing to die for Wolf Bob.... And you should already know how the rest of it goes.

You have still not given a step-by-step easy to understand sequence for how love can be introduced to a species by evolution, and have instead given me a red herring fallacy to pick apart.

 

[Prophet]

Good thing I have rational grounds.

And, you're welcome. I will continue to provide invaluable insight and wisdom to these "debates."

I will assume then that you have good reason for subjecting this debate to your opinions without support.

A famous atheist once wrote that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed in the same fashion and I couldn't agree more. Farewell.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Farewell.

Buh-bye!

Have fun with your mental gymnastics. Just get a lot more practice in before you try to compete again.

 

[Daviso452]

Daviso452 posited (and many echoed) that love was created by evolution to aid in the survival of humans. Now, I do NOT dispute that love (and the ability to understand it) aided greatly in the survival of our race. That much is obvious. What I DO dispute, however, is the hidden, irrational claim that because love has so aided in the shaping of the evolution of our species that it must be a result of it.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I did not mean that evolution purposely put it in there. Evolution is not a "thing". What I meant is that our species evolved to include love in our feelings to better survive. We evolved to love because it benefited the survival of our species.

Well im not assuming that there is a "Super consciousness" in this Universe, I have a theory as well. Because there is structure in this existence, and everything does what it is meant to do then to me there needs some consciousness behind it, and i just have one small observation missing

You're assuming that order requires consciousness. There is NO evidence to support that. We have evidence that consciousness can produce order, but there is no reason to believe that it is the only source. Order can just be a part of how our universe works. Why is that how it works? It just is that way. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

But regarding the corn flakes, they were not made with the intent of it floating to the bottom. It is an example of natural order.