Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

That you call it so. It is a naming convention. It is possible to explain the human experience without the idea of things. Now it is easier to have a short name for it, but that is useful and not a fact.

No matter what we call it, gorillas don't write dictionaries.

 

[Polymath257]

Any information as to when you think religion got started on this planet?

Probably when humans started thinking abstractly. I don't know if other animals can think abstractly. If they can, then maybe they have religion as well. I don't know.

 

[Polymath257]

The fact that we form theories for the existence of the cosmos is remarkable. Seems even Einstein was in awe. So if the universe is without purpose, does it seem reasonable to you that humans above all other lifeforms (such as gorillas) devised a system involving religion?

Yes. We are the first (as far as we know) to think abstractly. I think one of the consequences is forming abstractions that don't correspond to reality. So, we are also the only life forms that have fiction (as far as we know).

No matter what we call it, gorillas don't write dictionaries.

They don't have language to the point that they need to.

Also, remember that humans didn't write dictionaries until very recently (we've only had writing for about 5000 years).

 

[Polymath257]

I know. You've stated that you are in the "invented" camp. I'm in "discovered". But that is tangential to the current discussion. Important is that the (hard) science deals only with "real" stuff and that unreal (abstract) stuff exists.
But even that is a tangent (that should be clear by now) and we can go back to discussing abiogenesis in this thread.

If God exists as a fictional character only, or an illusion, then I have nothing else to say. The issue is whether God exists in the real world.

 

[YoursTrue]

Probably when humans started thinking abstractly. I don't know if other animals can think abstractly. If they can, then maybe they have religion as well. I don't know.

(yeah right...sure...of course, lolol...ok)

 

[YoursTrue]

If God exists as a fictional character only, or an illusion, then I have nothing else to say. The issue is whether God exists in the real world.

you mean he might exist but not in the real world you speak of?

 

[exchemist]

The fact that we form theories for the existence of the cosmos is remarkable. Seems even Einstein was in awe. So if the universe is without purpose, does it seem reasonable to you that humans above all other lifeforms (such as gorillas) devised a system involving religion?

Yes it does.

Unlike you, perhaps, I've travelled around the world a lot in the course of my life. One of the things that has struck me quite forcefully over the years is the way that different regions of the world have different religions, yet so many seem to have much the same themes: the importance of self-control, codes of conduct for living, a story about what happens to loved ones that die, ritual and tradition, and a sense of community. If there is no guiding deity it seems to me perfectly plausible to think that something about the human psyche, and about the way human societies organise themselves, gives rise to such things. The only differences are the specific legends, myths and teachings of wise men and women that symbolise and bring to life these factors, in a given environment. The alternative, that there is a deity guiding different societies towards these common themes, is an alternative possibility.

 

[Polymath257]

you mean he might exist but not in the real world you speak of?

Like I said, if God is a fictional character or an illusion, I have nothing else to say about the matter. Did you read @Heyo's post?

 

[Valjean]

No, the account states that the Creator, an eternal Self-existent Being, spoke life into existence.

The account is a myth, one of many. It's no better evidenced than the Mayan or Greek myths.

 

[Valjean]

Any information as to when you think religion got started on this planet?

Define it.

 

[Valjean]

No matter what we call it, gorillas don't write dictionaries.

Your point?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your point?

If you don't get it, no use in my explaining it. Hey, have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Define it.

Look, lets be honest with your viewpoint. You believe your great-great-++ lots more grandpap was a fish. Have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Define it

You don't know what religion is? ...take care...not too much more.

 

[Polymath257]

(yeah right...sure...of course, lolol...ok)

Well, religion is usually associated with ritualistic behavior that has no clear purpose. That sort of behavior is rare in animals. I've seen one claim of chimps showing such behavior, but I found it rather contrived.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Try to find scientific evidence that France "exists".

Is scientific evidence different from other public evidence? I've been to France, but not Russia. Do you think that those who have never seen Russia can't have sufficient evidence that Russia exists to consider it a fact?

my belief in a world external to myself requires of me an act of faith.

Not mine. I can only doubt in existence of a world outside of consciousness philosophically, not psychologically, as I am hardwired to live as if I were looking through and hearing through a window.

But it really doesn't matter what is actually out there, only what's in here. If I could somehow discover that reality outside of consciousness was radically different than the model I've constructed for navigating experience to effect desired outcomes - say a brain-in-a-vat scenario, and that I had no hands or fingers, for example - just the illusion of them - and I put that imaginary finger into an imaginary flame and feel the same pain I always have when burned - nothing changes. The rules of reality don't change at all.

We make decisions (deductions) using inductions accumulated from prior experience, and we experience sensory perceptions of the outcomes of those decisions. What else matters even to the brain in a vat? When playing an arcade racecar video game, he suspends disbelief that he's not actually moving or driving a car, a useful fiction compared to the reality of a computer chip with no moving parts, because a perfect knowledge of the reality in the game's chips is no more helpful at crossing the finish line.

And is it not possible to at least consider Schrodinger’s equation as evidence for the existence of a Logos, an underlying cosmic order? From which conception, it’s only a short step to an underlying creative intelligence which animates the universe? Just a thought, which of course I expect you to rebel against.

Did you mean reject rather than rebel? Nobody is rebelling.

That's that religious training that I referred to you l last time I posted to you - the kind that teaches that freethinking is an immoral act of rebellion against a good god (last time, you referred to freethought as arrogance). Why else would you use the word rebel there? It would never occur to me to call belief by faith rebellion against of critical thought, but then I'm not a product of the church.

But to answer your question, no, those ideas are not known to be impossible, but the rebel in me tells me that possible is not enough.

You've complained about my demeanor in these discussions, just before discontinuing responding. I assume that that is because you consider me disrespectful of your beliefs and therefore disrespectful of you and your god. You may have me on ignore by now. And all of that is fine. It neither necessary that you see these comments nor respond to them.

But can you say that you respect the people you're posting to if you call their dissent rebellion?

 

[Heyo]

Is scientific evidence different from other public evidence? I've been to France, but not Russia. Do you think that those who have never seen Russia can't have sufficient evidence that Russia exists to consider it a fact?

Scientific evidence is measurable data. How do you measure "Frenchness"?
What I was saying with this is that Nations are constructs. They only exist through our agreement that they do. They are not real.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, religion is usually associated with ritualistic behavior that has no clear purpose. That sort of behavior is rare in animals. I've seen one claim of chimps showing such behavior, but I found it rather contrived.

OK. I'm going to stick to my point as well, that chimps do not and have never written religious texts... I like your comment though. ALTHOUGH I will say that the things written in the Bible about the Law that God gave Moses for the Israelites (which, by the way, they agreed to follow) is very detailed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientific evidence is measurable data. How do you measure "Frenchness"?
What I was saying with this is that Nations are constructs. They only exist through our agreement that they do. They are not real.

I guess they can be real in the fact that one nation basically decides to go to war against another nation. As we see in Russia and Ukraine.

 

[Brian2]

What evidence for God would that be? What empirical, objective evidence do you have, that we could all perceive?

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not a scientismist.

Yes, but reason dictates withholding belief until there is evidence, no? Belief without evidence is unreasonable.

Not necessarily.
Believing something does not exist because we cannot see it is unreasonable.

It means it might be a fact, but that there is currently no rational reason to believe it. Faith-based belief is irrational/unreasonable.

No it does not mean that, it means that you have decided to not believe in god/s and think that is a rational path to follow.

No. Lack of belief in the not-objectively-evidenced is the epitome of reason.

I guess someone has told you that and you believe it.