Which evolved first, consciousness or senses

[ImmortalFlame]

You're one example of it, but you didn't come without prior plan.

Can you demonstrate that?

Also, you didn't answer my question.

 

[FearGod]

Can you demonstrate that?

Also, you didn't answer my question.

The stone is from nature but it has no life, you're a living creature but you came by a process
and developed in a womb, so how sure you're that no idea were needed for life to exist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The stone is from nature but it has no life, you're a living creature but you came by a process
and developed in a womb, so how sure you're that no idea were needed for life to exist.

You've still not answered my question. An idea requires a mind, a mind is a product of a brain. So how can an idea pre-exist life?

Hence, life is an example of something that is not planned and has no idea preceding it (so is a stone, for example).

 

[FearGod]

You've still not answered my question. An idea requires a mind, a mind is a product of a brain. So how can an idea pre-exist life?

Hence, life is an example of something that is not planned and has no idea preceding it (so is a stone, for example).

What if more advanced life and minds already existed in other part of the universe and we were created by them?
Imagine we were able to invent similar life and let it to reproduce in other planet, so life were existing (us)
and life started by us in another planet?

Do you think life and nature started from nothing, no matter to start with and no life to start with?
What's your alternative option?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What if more advanced life and minds already existed in other part of the universe and we were created by them?
Imagine we were able to invent similar life and let it to reproduce in other planet, so life were existing (us)
and life started by us in another planet?

Then the question remains as to whether an idea pre-existed them.

Do you think life and nature started from nothing, no matter to start with and no life to start with?

Not really. I'm not even sure if "nothing" is even a viable concept.

What's your alternative option?

Life is a natural consequence of physical forces and matter interacting in a particular state.

 

[FearGod]

Then the question remains as to whether an idea pre-existed them.

Any Idea needs intelligence, nature doesn't have intelligence, so yes intelligence exist before them but God doesn't equal to life
and nature that we know.

Not really. I'm not even sure if "nothing" is even a viable concept.

What was before the nature that we know? a thing
And what was before that thing? another thing
So where it ends?

Life is a natural consequence of physical forces and matter interacting in a particular state.

Where did they come from at first place?
What was the first thing and how the first thing exists from nothing?

 

[idav]

nature doesn't have intelligence

Hehe, thats a good one. Tell me, I take it you consider yourself supernatural cause god makes you with super powers and not natural like nature?

 

[FearGod]

Hehe, thats a good one. Tell me, I take it you consider yourself supernatural cause god makes you with super powers and not natural like nature?

I believe matter and life were a result of a plan and design, the nature doesn't came from nothing.
nothingness + nothingness will always give nothingness.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Planned and designed.

ideal examples of evolution are usually given as the simplest of physical advantages happening in isolation, e.g. the Giraffes neck gradually lengthening, (even though that half-neck Giraffe fossil has never been found.)

acquiring one simple significant advantage by lucky random mutation is problematic enough, the complexity of the brain and nervous system accidentally improving itself, simultaneously with everything else, greatly compounds the problems

 

[idav]

I believe matter and life were a result of a plan and design, the nature doesn't came from nothing.
nothingness + nothingness will always give nothingness.

Right so humans are not natural so , supernatural?

 

[FearGod]

Right so humans are not natural so , supernatural?

Did i say humans are supernatural?
Where did i say so?

I said matter and life are a product of plan and design, otherwise you have to believe
that nothingness caused a thing to exist.

 

[Zosimus]

Right so humans are not natural so , supernatural?

Just as cars are not natural, therefore supernatural I suppose.

When will you realize that the opposite of natural is not supernatural but artificial.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Any Idea needs intelligence,

Hence why an idea needn't pre-exist intelligence. By definition, it can't.

nature doesn't have intelligence,

And yet, nature creates, therefore a creation does not require an idea.

so yes intelligence exist before them but God doesn't equal to life and nature that we know.

So you're saying that the idea of God doesn't pre-date the existence of God? Then you completely contradicted your argument and formulated an argument from special pleading.

What was before the nature that we know? a thing
And what was before that thing? another thing
So where it ends?

Can you demonstrate these assertions to be true or false? Can you demonstrate that an "end" is even required?

Where did they come from at first place?

The same place everything else came from, presumably.

What was the first thing and how the first thing exists from nothing?

How do you know that there even was a "first thing" or that anything came from "nothing"?

 

[atanu]

..
How can things without a hinge create a hinge?

Answer the opposite question then. Can a created hinge create or understand its creator?

And apply the above answer to the following.

I have repeatedly explained that intelligence is a byproduct of a physical process.

Since your consciousness is a mere by-product -- a created effect -- of a physical process, how can it understand the process and beyond? How can you claim that you have superior reasoning power with ability for objective insight? You are just following what the process decided.

 

[FearGod]

Hence why an idea needn't pre-exist intelligence. By definition, it can't.

Is it natural that a thing exists as the outcome of nothingness?
If you have the right answer then i will agree with you that an idea needn't pre-exist intelligence.

And yet, nature creates, therefore a creation does not require an idea.

And where did nature come from? what its source, how it started from nothingness?

So you're saying that the idea of God doesn't pre-date the existence of God? Then you completely contradicted your argument and formulated an argument from special pleading.

No, you have to explain first how things started as the outcome of nothingness?

Can you demonstrate these assertions to be true or false? Can you demonstrate that an "end" is even required?

It's whether to accept that something existed and always do exist-no end(God) or there was nothing to start with

The same place everything else came from, presumably.

How that place came to existence while there was no existence?
Tell me in your own words that you believe things can exist from nothingness?

How do you know that there even was a "first thing" or that anything came from "nothing"?

Do you have other options than there was a thing to start with or things started from nothingness?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Senses without consciousness has no value, similarly consciousness without senses has no value.

It's not a valid dichotomy, it would be more accurate to talk about sense-consciousness.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Answer the opposite question then. Can a created hinge create or understand its creator?

That question doesn't even make sense.

Since your consciousness is a mere by-product -- a created effect -- of a physical process, how can it understand the process and beyond?

What difference does that make? Are you under the impression that the act of understanding cannot possibly be the result of a physical process? Where is your evidence of this?

How can you claim that you have superior reasoning power with ability for objective insight? You are just following what the process decided.

How can some people be better drivers if they're all using the same basic engine?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is it natural that a thing exists as the outcome of nothingness?

You keep using the word "nothing". I've never used it, and I have never made any assertions about it. Please stop constructing strawmen.

If you have the right answer then i will agree with you that an idea needn't pre-exist intelligence.

I have no answer, since I cannot possibly assert anything about "nothingness" since we have no examples of it to test and therefore cannot formulate and conclusions about it.

And where did nature come from? what its source, how it started from nothingness?

See above.

No, you have to explain first how things started as the outcome of nothingness?

No I don't, because I have never asserted it did. In fact, I have repeatedly explained in detail that I make no claims about "nothingness" and that I am not even certain that "nothingness" is even a viable concept.

It's whether to accept that something existed and always do exist-no end(God) or there was nothing to start with

Why do you assume that something that always existed is God? Why can't the Universe have always existed in some form?

How that place came to existence while there was no existence?
Tell me in your own words that you believe things can exist from nothingness?

You apparently aren't reading my posts very carefully. So I will make this even more clear for you:

1- I have never asserted anything about "nothingness" other than we have no basis on which to assume any of its qualities
2- I have repeatedly stated that I am not even certain "nothingness" is even a viable or possible concept
3- I do not believe the Universe came from "nothingness" as per (1) and (2)

Do you have other options than there was a thing to start with or things started from nothingness?

Sure. The Universe may have existed eternally in some form, been the result of infinite regress, the result of a big crunch, or the result of the multiverse.

 

[FearGod]

How can some people be better drivers if they're all using the same basic engine?

But humans have the same eyes, the same ears and the same senses, then why the input data processed differently.

Humans have the same brains, but cars may have different engines and the driver uses the engine and
not the engine uses itself, incomparable

 

[FearGod]

You keep using the word "nothing". I've never used it, and I have never made any assertions about it. Please stop constructing strawmen.


I have no answer, since I cannot possibly assert anything about "nothingness" since we have no examples of it to test and therefore cannot formulate and conclusions about it.


See above.


No I don't, because I have never asserted it did. In fact, I have repeatedly explained in detail that I make no claims about "nothingness" and that I am not even certain that "nothingness" is even a viable concept.


Why do you assume that something that always existed is God? Why can't the Universe have always existed in some form?


You apparently aren't reading my posts very carefully. So I will make this even more clear for you:

1- I have never asserted anything about "nothingness" other than we have no basis on which to assume any of its qualities
2- I have repeatedly stated that I am not even certain "nothingness" is even a viable or possible concept
3- I do not believe the Universe came from "nothingness" as per (1) and (2)


Sure. The Universe may have existed eternally in some form, been the result of infinite regress, the result of a big crunch, or the result of the multiverse.

So in short you assume the universe always exists but not God, my next question regardless of who always exists God or the universe,
Do you think it's normal for a thing to always exist without being a product of something else?