Why are there still Monkeys?

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If something caused the Universe to come into existence, whether or not it itself was caused or eternal or whatever, the big question then is, is there any evidence that this something was/is intelligent and conscious?

I'd say no, there is no "signature" in the Universe that conceptually cannot come from any natural processes, discovered or not.

I can imagine prehistoric man making the very same statements about the rising and setting of the sun, earthquakes and raindrops.

 

[ruffen]

I can imagine prehistoric man making the very same statements about the rising and setting of the sun, earthquakes and raindrops.

Indeed. Claiming God exists because the Universe exists and we can't understand why, is a classical God-of-the-gaps argument.

As is claiming God exist because one does not understand or believe in evolution.

 

[idav]

.... is there any evidence that this something was/is intelligent and conscious?

For obvious reasons it is difficult to determine if something like a particle can know things or has intelligence. When they just act as cause and effect then thats hardly a possibility. However with Wheelers delayed choice experiment, the particle appears to make a choice as if it knows things before it had time to.

I would love to hear anybodies input on how that can be explained away.

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The thing that causes people to argue about when and how the photon learns that the experimental apparatus is in a certain configuration and then changes from wave to particle to fit the demands of the experiment's configuration is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomers observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the galaxy or only one way. Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago "to be is to be perceived."[3]

 

[FearGod]

For obvious reasons it is difficult to determine if something like a particle can know things or has intelligence. When they just act as cause and effect then thats hardly a possibility. However with Wheelers delayed choice experiment, the particle appears to make a choice as if it knows things before it had time to.

I would love to hear anybodies input on how that can be explained away.

How such particles can be related to humans and to the creator.

 

[idav]

How such particles is related to us humans and to the creator.

Those particles are the building blocks of energy and matter. At the fundamental levels these particles appear to be able to interact across boundaries of time and space. This shows that the underlying reality is potentially eternal and omnipresent.

Also I am a data type person, I believe everything is potential knowledge in data form. The experiment I mentioned would suggest that the particles know things because of these interactions that cross the boundaries of space and time, in turn suggest a sort of omniscient, all knowing aspect of the underlying reality. That is most of the attributes of any defined god, eternal, omnipresent and omniscient and I can easily see how intelligence can emerge from that, by way of fundamental reactions as demonstrated by physics particularly in quantum mechanics.

Sorry if this is off topic. I have a thread about this. I had not yet mentioned omniscience though.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/165264-spacetime-eternal-omnipresent.html

 

[metis]

One of the problems we often see here is that some cannot or do not realize that their religious beliefs are not necessarily facts, therefore their religious beliefs are also not science unless it just works out that way by coincidence. Science is based on obtaining objectively-derived evidence, but religious beliefs are not based on that technique at all, instead relying on hear-say that simply cannot in most cases be confirmed. Let me demonstrate my point.

Let's say I post this: Our universe and all that's in it was created by a group of 1000 deities, all working together in harmony while singing "Kumbaya". Prove me wrong.

Now notice that I didn't say "I believe..." with the above, which would have been a far better way for me to say it. Even though you may disagree with my belief, you simply cannot prove me wrong no matter how hard you may try.

This is the nature of religious beliefs in general, namely that they are mostly unfalsifiable-- iow, you simply cannot prove them wrong. However, neither can I prove what I wrote right.

My point is that the minute one posts "God created...", they are making a mistake because it's virtually impossible to confirm that. But the minute one writes "I believe God created...", they are stating it in a more proper manner even though they still cannot confirm that they're correct.

For those of us the scientific field, we have to wear different "hats", because we simply can't confuse our objective approach that we use with science with the subjective and unfalsifiable approach with what we may believe religiously. Some don't seem to understand that we have to operate this way because we simply cannot impose our religious beliefs when it comes to science without compromising our objectivity.

 

[FearGod]

Those particles are the building blocks of energy and matter.

How those are related to life itself?

How to compare electrons and an inanimate things to life.

 

[idav]

How those are related to life itself?

How to compare electrons and an inanimate things to life.

First those particles are not inanimate. All life is built off these same building blocks.

 

[FearGod]

First those particles are not inanimate. All life is built off these same building blocks.

Thats great, make life then with those building blocks. :sarcastic

 

[idav]

Thats great, make life then with those building blocks. :sarcastic

I don't need to, nature already has.

 

[FearGod]

I don't need to, nature already has.

 

[idav]

Yeah right back at you.


It is a fact that all matter, rocks, plants humans are made of the basic elements, molecules and chemicals along with the energy that preceded matter. To deny this is to stick you head in the sand.

 

[FearGod]

Yeah right back at you.


It is a fact that all matter, rocks, plants humans are made of the basic elements, molecules and chemicals along with the energy that preceded matter. To deny this is to stick you head in the sand.

there is a difference between a living matter and a non living matter.

How can you compare a stone to a human being ?

 

[sojourner]

The more worthwhile question, I feel, is this:

Why, if "candy" in the plural becomes "candies," and "dairy" becomes "dairies," and "fairy" becomes "fairies," and "berry" becomes "berries," why does "monkey" become "monkeys?"

 

[sojourner]

there is a difference between a living matter and a non living matter.

How can you compare a stone to a human being ?

They're made out of the same basic building-blocks. It's all stellar matter. Everything is all stellar matter.

 

[FearGod]

The more worthwhile question, I feel, is this:

Why, if "candy" in the plural becomes "candies," and "dairy" becomes "dairies," and "fairy" becomes "fairies," and "berry" becomes "berries," why does "monkey" become "monkeys?"

The same as donkeys

 

[idav]

For obvious reasons it is difficult to determine if something like a particle can know things or has intelligence. When they just act as cause and effect then thats hardly a possibility. However with Wheelers delayed choice experiment, the particle appears to make a choice as if it knows things before it had time to.

I would love to hear anybodies input on how that can be explained away.

Those particles are the building blocks of energy and matter. At the fundamental levels these particles appear to be able to interact across boundaries of time and space. This shows that the underlying reality is potentially eternal and omnipresent.

Also I am a data type person, I believe everything is potential knowledge in data form. The experiment I mentioned would suggest that the particles know things because of these interactions that cross the boundaries of space and time, in turn suggest a sort of omniscient, all knowing aspect of the underlying reality. That is most of the attributes of any defined god, eternal, omnipresent and omniscient and I can easily see how intelligence can emerge from that, by way of fundamental reactions as demonstrated by physics particularly in quantum mechanics.

Sorry if this is off topic. I have a thread about this. I had not yet mentioned omniscience though.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/165264-spacetime-eternal-omnipresent.html

there is a difference between a living matter and a non living matter.

How can you compare a stone to a human being ?

I explained in the post where you cut out just the first sentence. And the post before that. I bolded the important parts. Experiments make it appear as though the building blocks themselves have knowledge potential beyond what just basic cause and effect allows. I believe intelligence is an emergent property and evolution shows it, intelligence increases with complexity.

 

[Valjean]

Originally Posted by FearGod
there is a difference between a living matter and a non living matter.

How can you compare a stone to a human being ?

What is this difference? Is there some measurable, essential feature that defines life? What makes life alive?

 

[FearGod]

What is this difference? Is there some measurable, essential feature that defines life? What makes life alive?
[/i]

Living thing - definition from Biology-Online.org

 

[McBell]

The more worthwhile question, I feel, is this:

Why, if "candy" in the plural becomes "candies," and "dairy" becomes "dairies," and "fairy" becomes "fairies," and "berry" becomes "berries," why does "monkey" become "monkeys?"

um...
the letter 'e'...