I found this video on YouTube and the arguement it made intriged me. I wanted to post it here to get your feedback.

Views: 677

Replies to This Discussion

!!!! :-)
Sorry about that, probably sloppy wording on my part. I meant that in ADDITION to utterly failing to prove its points creation "science" has no applications in the real world, meaning that creation "science" isn't even worth investigating seriously because it offers nothing to gain. Even if you believe in an afterlife people who are still living have nothing to benefit from in creation "science." So not only is creation "science" dead wrong - it's bloody useless even as speculation!
Well said that man!
Very entertaining, especially the voice that sounds computer generated. Such a voice is congruent with the nominalist perspective with which the author approached the subject. Unfortunately, he has proved nothing except his ignorance of the absolute presupposition on which all of his argument depends. To put it in non-technical terms, his argument presupposes: "Nothing God-like exists"; then, goes on with: "As for the rest....." How incredible then that he concludes that God doesn't exist. In a way, what he has done is pay an oblique complement to St. Anselm.

"Proofs" such as this are more evidence of the "dumbing-down" of education we see in America today.
This "proof", and several of the comments regarding it, belie an intellectual impoverishment that is quite sad. Absolute presuppositions--- those underlying science, as well as those underlying theology--- are not susceptible of proof. They are articles of faith or, more often, are unconsciously assumed. Any attempt to "prove" an absolute presupposition results only in pseudo-metaphysics.

So, very clever; but it "proved" only what it was predetermined to prove.
I can't see how you saw the proposition that "nothing god-like exists" in this guy's argument. I heard him arguing that "nothing godlike can exist" outside the time/space continuum, at least as long as "godlike" is defined in terms of a thing which can create and influence this universe.

BTW, I was _not_ educated in the USA so my failure to see what you see here has nothing to do with the abnormally prolonged US money-extraction scholastic industry.
But what if it's not a "god" at all... deist or otherwise?

What if it is just "intelligence/consciousness" - not infallible; not benevolent; not a single personality responsible for everything and having an agenda... but an aggregate of all of the "intelligence" in the universe which has ever been or ever will be. Timeless, ubiquitous; omniscient; ever changing (evolving)... and something of which we are all a part, and have always been a part... changing through time.

Science has seemingly invented an ineffable substance called "dark matter" to allow for influences on matter and energy in the universe. What if this is just "intelligence/consciousness"? What if our problem is just that as single human incarnations we are so limited by our biological vehicle and brain/filter/receiver that while incarnate we are unable to grasp such a thing without altered states of... consciousness?

I understand what this biologist has to say. It makes sense to me:

Why are you spamming theistic junk here?
Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic field" theories are not theistic. Morphic fields are not "god(s)".

He is a biologist. He explains his theories quite rationally.
I don't care who said it, making any claim that dark matter is thought or that thought comes together across all time is just making sh*t up to amuse yourself. If that's all you are going for, or if you are just trying to spark conversation, fine. But if you are supporting these views, then you are supporting superstitious whoo with no basis.
Dark matter as thought is my own concept... as is consciousness existing throughout time and influencing material processes.

As for "making sh*t up to amuse" oneself... well... that can just as easily be applied to those who postulate the complete absence of "time" prior to a presupposed "big bang" which is supported by reams of mathematical theory leading to no experimentally verifiable conclusions.
As for "making sh*t up to amuse" oneself... well... that can just as easily be applied to those who postulate the complete absence of "time" prior to a presupposed "big bang" which is supported by reams of mathematical theory leading to no experimentally verifiable conclusions.

Actually, that is completely wrong. Relativity tells us that space and time are the same thing. Relativity has been experimentally verified repeatedly.

Observations of the universe point to the fact that not only is matter expanding through spacetime, but spacetime originated with the big bang. Thus, before the big bang, relativity and the observations of the expansion of the universe point to "no time."

Here's a link on the expansion of the universe:
Can intelligence even exist without some kind of organic or technology based brain, and wouldn't a technological brain require an organic designer? That's what we'd have to decide for this idea to make any sense at all. Intelligence, as we know it, can only come about as a result of evolution. There's no evidence that any intelligence exists outside of what our brains can produce. Even human intelligence is a poorly understood concept.

Is knowledge intelligence? Is tact intelligence? Is empathy intelligence? Is creativity intelligence? Intelligence is a hard concept to define. An illiterate person can make a more intelligent decision than a professor with a Ph.D.

We would also have to consider the meaning of consciousness. Is consciousness simply being aware of what is happening around us? Is it being aware of one's own existence? Is human consciousness comparable to other kinds of consciousness, if they exist? Are animals conscious? Can a machine achieve consciousness?

You're trying to describe a creator force using terms we humans haven't conclusively defined yet. The main problem I see with this idea, as I stated before, is the idea that intelligence/consciousness can exist without a medium for organizing concepts, knowledge and experiences that can also interpret and draw from them – without a brain. You’re describing a type of intelligence that is immaterial. I do not see any evidence that this is possible because intelligence, as we know it, comes from experience, and experiences come from a material being experiencing the material world (acted upon by genetic factors). This concept works beautifully for fantasy but has no grounding in science at all.

NOTE: In the first paragraph I'm speaking of intelligence as a trait developed on a species level. In the final paragraph I'm refering to intelligence as a personal trait that developes in individuals over time.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service