Which evolved first, consciousness or senses

[ImmortalFlame]

Then the alternative is a thing that always exists which is God or you call it the universe.
If not then what's your view of it.

I've never said God isn't an alternative, nor a possibility. All I do is question the logic you have thus far used to discount or dismiss any possibility OTHER than God. Do you understand?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The brains of the criminals, need reprogramming with a moral software.

I've already explained that a criminal's brain isn't necessarily damaged. A person can still commit a crime without having any problems with their brain, and with perfect knowledge that what they are doing isn't legal. Is this difficult for you to understand?

The brain of a baby child should be already evolved by the evolution process, the baby can see, can hear but
the brain know nothing.

Because a newborn infant hasn't processed any information yet. What makes you think the human brain, if evolved, should have huge quantities of information already stored in it from the moment of birth?

 

[FearGod]

I've never said God isn't an alternative, nor a possibility. All I do is question the logic you have thus far used to discount or dismiss any possibility OTHER than God. Do you understand?

I included God within other possibilities and asked you about other alternative and your view of it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I included God within other possibilities and asked you about other alternative and your view of it.

No, you said that God was THE alternative, not one of many. You have repeatedly stated this false dichotomy.

Do you or do you not admit that there MAY be more possibilities than just "Nothingness or God"?

 

[FearGod]

I've already explained that a criminal's brain isn't necessarily damaged. A person can still commit a crime without having any problems with their brain, and with perfect knowledge that what they are doing isn't legal. Is this difficult for you to understand?

My brain is processing the information, please wait.

Because a newborn infant hasn't processed any information yet. What makes you think the human brain, if evolved, should have huge quantities of information already stored in it from the moment of birth?

Aha it was beneficial later on.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My brain is processing the information, please wait.

Aha it was beneficial later on.

You've not answered my questions. Here they are, paraphrased for simplicity's sake:

1) Do you understand/accept that criminal/immoral activity isn't necessarily the result of a "damaged" or "malfunctioning" brain?
2) Do you understand/accept that the human brain being an evolved organ doesn't necessarily mean it functions with a wealth of information stored in it from birth, in spite of not previously having been exposed to or processing any information?

These are yes or no questions, so please answer accordingly.

 

[FearGod]

No, you said that God was THE alternative, not one of many. You have repeatedly stated this false dichotomy.

Do you or do you not admit that there MAY be more possibilities than just "Nothingness or God"?

I asked you what other possibilities? a thing that always exists, God or the universe
The other alternative is nothingness, no space, no time, no matter. no life.
Do you have other possibilities?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I asked you what other possibilities? a thing that always exists, God or the universe
The other alternative is nothingness, no space, no time, no matter. no life.
Do you have other possibilities?

Why is it that you repeatedly avoid my questions and insist on asking me questions that I have already answered several posts ago?

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.

Do you not bother to read my posts?

 

[FearGod]

You've not answered my questions. Here they are, paraphrased for simplicity's sake:
These are yes or no questions, so please answer accordingly.

Do you understand/accept that criminal/immoral activity isn't necessarily the result of a "damaged" or "malfunctioning" brain?

Of course not a result of a damaged brain but how a person uses his brain whether for bad or good

2) Do you understand/accept that the human brain being an evolved organ doesn't necessarily mean it functions with a wealth of information stored in it from birth, in spite of not previously having been exposed to or processing any information?

How it was beneficial then while not at work except years after birth? don't you realize that the brain was pre-designed for such purpose?

 

[FearGod]

Why is it that you repeatedly avoid my questions and insist on asking me questions that I have already answered several posts ago?

Do you not bother to read my posts?

So your view it's eternally existed and still existing, but do you think eternal existing thing is very nature and very understood.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.)

This is one I dug up in my garden yesterday:

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So in short you assume the universe always exists but not God,

It's a reasonable assumption, given that evidence of the universe is all around us but there is no evidence at all for God.

God is a nothing more than a figment of human imagination, a fantasy father figure to help people cope.

 

[FearGod]

It's a reasonable assumption, given that evidence of the universe is all around us but there is no evidence at all for God.

God is a nothing more than a figment of human imagination, a fantasy father figure to help people cope.

The inanimate stones is a reasonable assumption.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So your view it's eternally existed and still existing,

Since I have already explained my position very clearly, I can only conclude that you really aren't reading my posts, so I will conclude this debate with you. There is no point in trying to discuss something with someone who is incapable of listening.

 

[FearGod]

Since I have already explained my position very clearly, I can only conclude that you really aren't reading my posts, so I will conclude this debate with you. There is no point in trying to discuss something with someone who is incapable of listening.

This is your own words

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.

Existed eternally been the result of infinite regress, the result of a big crunch, or the result of the multiverse

My question which you didn't answer is

Do you think an eternal existing universe is normal and very natural thing to happen?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is your own words


Existed eternally been the result of infinite regress, the result of a big crunch, or the result of the multiverse

And where did I say that is explicitly BELIEVED any of those positions? Nowhere. I took great effort to explain quite clearly that I don't have a position on how the Universe started.

My question which you didn't answer is

Do you think an eternal existing universe is normal and very natural thing to happen?

Now you have just confirmed that you aren't even reading my posts, because I answered that (inane) question several posts ago. Here's my answer again:

"That question doesn't even make sense. I have no idea what "normal" means in this context. We're talking about the origin of the Universe and all physical laws contained therein. How am I supposed to know what is considered "normal" in this context? Do you think it's "normal" for an effect to precede a cause? If not, then what you consider "normal" is irrelevant to reality, because we already know that effects at the quantum level can precede a cause."

 

[FearGod]

And where did I say that is explicitly BELIEVED any of those positions? Nowhere. I took great effort to explain quite clearly that I don't have a position on how the Universe started.


Now you have just confirmed that you aren't even reading my posts, because I answered that (inane) question several posts ago. Here's my answer again:

"That question doesn't even make sense. I have no idea what "normal" means in this context. We're talking about the origin of the Universe and all physical laws contained therein. How am I supposed to know what is considered "normal" in this context? Do you think it's "normal" for an effect to precede a cause? If not, then what you consider "normal" is irrelevant to reality, because we already know that effects at the quantum level can precede a cause."

Is it an inane question to ask you about your opinion if you think that the eternally existing universe was created by natural means.
If it isn't natural and it isn't then why you need to make a dodgy stupid answers.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do you think an eternal existing universe is normal and very natural thing to happen?

It's a meaningless question. You would do better to look closely at the natural world and see if you can find anything "eternal" there.

 

[atanu]

That question doesn't even make sense....

That is true. If a question regarding 'whether a created hinge can create the hinge creator?' is absurd, how much more absurd it is to imagine that an intelligence created by some non intelligent process can unravel the truth of the process.

It is like a particular lego block structure attains intelligence and then starts talking about the creator of the structure.
.......

In Vedantic view, consciousness is not created or formed. It is present and it is that within which time and all structures are manifested and destroyed and we are this consciousness -- the knower of all processes. Being the unborn awareness, we have the ultimate power to obtain freedom from the cycle of action-reaction determinism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is one I dug up in my garden yesterday:

Well I stand corrected on something, I didn't know camels ever lived in Ireland!