>Shit tier: people who blindly follow religion without ever truly questioning it
>Meh tier: people who are atheists because "lol religion is for dumb sheeple! I dont need imaginary friends!!!"
>God tier: religious people who are intelligent enough to question it when necessary, but also have a good comprehension of theological concepts and such
Agree? pic unrelated
>>435477
What about I find God not interesting enough?
>>435477
What about atheists who study theology?
>>435477
No, because being religious is still believing things that probably aren't true or haven't been demonstrated to be true.
>>435477
>religious people
>intelligent
Pick one
>religious people who are intelligent enough to question it when necessary, but also have a good comprehension of theological concepts and such
So someone who imposes a sort of pseudo-skepticism onto himself. Skepticism without ever really questioning anything they believe in
I think you mean self-delusion tier instead of god tier
>>435518
>So someone who imposes a sort of pseudo-skepticism onto himself. Skepticism without ever really questioning anything they believe in
What? It sounds like you just skimmed through a dictionary and picked some words out
So, god tier is composed of people who are intelligent and rational but have allowed fear to override their critical thinking in a few select subjects?
>>435524
Not that guy, but what words were misused there?
>>435524
Not really, what you do is saying you 'question' your ideas, while in the next sentence giving the impression that you never really consider that your ideas could ever be wrong in the first place because of some bullshit 'good comprehension' excuse
You basically question without questioning. What you play is a slimy game where you present yourself as self-critical, without ever considering that you could be wrong on anything
>>435477
I like how you completely strawman atheists, but somehow find the theologist theist interesting.
There are actually atheists, such as myself who are interested in religion and theology, but don't believe in it's metaphysical claims.
Atheists who worship their inflated egos are far worse than the unquestioning believer.
The reality of a Creator is undeniable, but the specifics are where the problem lies.
>>435572
>The reality of a Creator is undeniable
>>435572
>The reality of a Creator is undeniable
>>435572
>The reality of a Creator is undeniable
>>435477
Always struck by a desire to believe in some religion but nothing I have found makes sense. I still believe there could be an ultimate power out there but if there is I don't believe it has much care or concern for humans or anything for that matter.
>>435607
>It's obvious we come from something.
our parents.
>>435616
Is this bait or can I literally perform the world's first diagnosis of autism over the internet?
>>435614
Easy. You assume providence because it's human nature. Life is sacred to us, so we assume that something was responsible. This is an unfounded assumption.
>>435607
That's a bit vague. And how do you know it's not the case that the universe has always been here?
>>435621
I know what you meant, autist.
>>435623
*something intelligent and with intent was responsible
>>435630
>>believing that something can come from nothing
Holy fuck, no one is saying that.
>>435623
Perhaps, but I just don't understand what advantage there was to having abd continuing life. Why would such a thing develop?
>religious
>questioning
Choose one. Religion and philosophy can't go together.
>>435630
>he doesn't keep up with science
>>435477
God tier are people capable of doublethinking
>>435637
Life has the intrinsic property of continuing itself. Once a spark of it exists, of course it's gonna continue to.
>>435624
Then that must be explained. An infinite chain of events does not explain anything, because the question is then "forget the events, why does the chain exist?"
>>435630
Even if something couldn't come from nothing, this doesn't prove your magical sky-fairy Christfag.
>>435650
To ask why you presuppose a reason, as in a reason an intelligent being would act on. You can ask how it exists. Go ask a scientist.
>>435646
pretty much that.
>>435648
Like hell
"Whoops, by random occurrence all this matter and energy is "living" now, and also has the ability to reproduce"
It's not fire, it's outrageously complicated and serves no real benefit.
>>435683
Are you not familiar with evolution?
>>435636
>>435644
>they don't realise that humans are literally matter that has been arranged to experience and ponder the universe
>thinks some "academic" can explain this them, while said "scholar's" beliefs in evolution unwittingly imply that matter is conscious
Contradictions everywhere, yet you're blinded by your egos. There is something greater than you, but you're unwilling to truly accept it.
>>435652
What is Deism?
>>435691
I think you'll need to explain further.
>>435683
Fire is simple, so the human mind can easily accept that "randomly" coming into existence. Life is extremely complicated, so the human mind is less accepting of it coming into existence naturally. This is due to the human mind not being able to completely understand the complicated machinery that is life. Due to this incapability to understand, we then assume the supernatural, which is again, an unfounded assumption.
>>435695
>implying you're a fucking deist
Stop trolling.
>>435696
It's not as if matter magically became living. It was a very very gradual process. You would hardly recognize the first chains of life as life.
>>435640
You're shitting me right
>>435665
Then that how must have a how, and on and on and on. Come on with this shit
>>435695
You're just expressing your emotional awe at the existence of human life. Human life is totally explainable scientifically. We know why we have a mind.
>>435717
Well then you're just being a pitiful little skeptic.
>>435719
Dude how big is your fedora that you don't get the difference between "how did life appear on this planet" and "how is life even a thing in the first place". Christ almighty.
Evolution explains life but it doesn't explain why evolution would produce life in the first place. It's like asking a random dude who just showed up in you kitchen why the fuck he's here and who the fuck he is and have him tip his fedora and say "I took the bus heh"
>>435735
Are you trolling? Evolution works through the selection for favorable genetic mutations.
>>435711
Perhaps I'll become more understanding if you explain further.
>>435723
So either there is a first cause that has about has much evidence for it being "scientific" as it does for being "god" or causal chain of reality extends jnfinitely into the past, in which case you must explain the presence of the chain itself. Yeah, no
>>435735
Dude. ACTUALLY start reading about evolution instead of thinking you have the answers.
You illustrate perfectly that you have ZERO knowledge on the subject.
Go read a book.
>>435743
Stop thinking in terms of intentions. Evolution has no intentions. It just happens.
>>435743
As I said earlier in this thread, asking a why question implies a reason. A reason is the explanation for an action of a living agent. You can't ask this question without presupposing some kind of intelligence behind natural phenomena.
>>435477
>"God" tier
I see what you did there, you cheeky cunt
;^)
>>435749
I'm not sure what to say. I'm not an expert on evolution. You can do research as to how life came about yourself.
>>435750
>everything needs a cause
Go read some new physics.
>>435758
Particles follow, blind mechanical laws until they become conscious, and there's absolutely no reason to suspect some intelligent principle behind the prospect for life being literally in the universe "code", or at the very least question why this is the case if your sterile, autistic worldview is actually correct
Muh evolution, muh evolution. Christ just put a sock in it
>>435774
>The Scientific method is infallible
>Scientists are infallible
>My ego is infallible
This is your religion.
>>435774
>everything needs a cause
>if something appears acausal, then it must be acausal instead of modifying our models until they can account for these discrepancies
Literally the principle of sufficient reason you autistic
>>435785
Nietzsche pls
>>435779
>some intelligent principle behind the prospect for life being literally in the universe "code"
Not sure what you mean by that.
>why
Ah, there's the word. Why isn't a word you should use. The proper word is "how". How these particles eventually formed us.
>Muh evolution, muh evolution.
What are you trying to accomplish? Evolution won't stop being true just because you accept it. Unless I misunderstand you.
>>435798
He's implying that you're dumb enough to believe that evolution being true somehow negates there being a God.
>>435809
Well, that's ass-backwards. First, evolution doesn't negate God. Second, God shouldn't be the default position.
>>435779
Sorry I guess the universe must be magic after all. Gee whiz who'da think
>>435824
>Nice strawman
Yeah, why don't you state your case clearly then, buddy. All I'm getting is "If people are conscious the universe must be too." What's your claim? How would you investigate further?
>>435824
No, I don't think "new atheists," who I think you refer to, think evolution negates God. They just have to argue against creationists/other theists who think it does, and deny evolution because of that.
>>435744
>genetic codes are somehow "programmed" without an explanation as to how something unconscious can program itself
>>435845
Where the fuck were you educated?
>>435845
>without an explanation
There is one. You choose to not understand, and therefore God.
>>435812
Yup, you got it bruh, questioning the nature of this reality we all inexplicably find ourselves in is things only dumb steeple do, definitely not a dashing an of science such as yourself. Give it a rest nigga
>>435809
No, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive
>>435798
I'm only going to say this once: if something g exists, it had the potential to exist. Life exists. Consciousness exists. It's worth wondering how this is so, IF the universe is intrinsically nothing but a dumb, deaf, and blind chemical reaction. That's it.
>>435838
Lol you think I'm saying the universe is conscious? Are you retarded? Do you o ly see the world on fedora vision?
>>435862
>It's worth wondering how this is so,
We know how it's possible in this "dumb, deaf, blind" universe though. We have explanations. You can look them up. What's the issue?
>>435862
>I'm only going to say this once: if something g exists, it had the potential to exist. Life exists. Consciousness exists. It's worth wondering how this is so, IF the universe is intrinsically nothing but a dumb, deaf, and blind chemical reaction. That's it.
You're making a composition fallacy.
>>435872
>this intrinsically dumb etc. universe quite easily produces the complete antithesis of itself because _______
Pretty shitty logic there friendo
>>435845
It's a metaphor, it doesn't literally mean somebody sits down and writes all the code and injects it into cells. The mechanism is mutation + natural selection - genes are self-propagating so the fittest variants continue the longest. Repeat iteration.
>>435881
>antithesis
And life is the antithesis of the universe because ____? Pretty shitty logic there, friendo.
>One True God Tier: Atheists who realize that ignoramuses like >>435862 desperately need, and cling to religion; and that we don't need to take his comforting ideology away from him as long as he keeps within his slave mentality.
>>435881
How can something be called dumb when it doesn't even think? We call someone dumb because they think poorly, not because cannot think at all. Matter is not smart or stupid; certain collections of it can be.
>>435895
/thread
>>435862
>Lol you think I'm saying the universe is conscious?
That's what I'm asking you! Whaddya asking me for?
What's your fixation? Life exists therefore the universe _________
Is intelligent? Is also alive? What?
>>435607
>It's obvious we come from something
for you maybe.
>>435477
The problem with exposing this kind of thing in public is that only those in the "god tier" you're describing are going to understand what you're talking about. The 2 others are way too narrow-minded and immature to grasp these concepts.
>>435881
Quite easily produces the complete antithesis from itself, too. They're grasping at straws to maintain the illusion that they've arrived at THE conclusion of all conclusions.
>>435892
In the terms that we are conscious while the matter of the universe is itself apparently unconscious.
>>435897
>arguing semantics when you know exactly what context he meant it in
>>435750
there is no need for first cause.
thats you, as a human, trying applying a anthropocentric conception of reality.
>>435911
>In the terms that we are conscious while the matter of the universe is itself apparently unconscious.
And? Why is this the antithesis of the universe? Is light the antithesis of the universe since it's the only thing that goes that velocity?
>>435787
but the universe doesnt need a first cause to work as it does.
The principle of sufficient reason does not apply.
>shit tier: Unfounded generalization based on a superficial understanding of the world around me.
>meh tier: Another generalization, except based on how people act over the internet.
>god tier: People who agree with my wishy-washy compromise between delusion and pseudo-rationality. It's okay to keep believing the stuff force-fed to me as a child as long as I pretend to question it sometimes! I am an intelligent free-thinking individual!
OP is and will always be a faggot.
>>435897
>this is the kind of autism we're dealing with
It's just a way of saying matter does not act but can only be acted on Jesus Christ
>>435892
Let's do this step by step you sperg
>the universe is fundamentally a blind, meaningless chemical reaction on a grand scale. Its physical constants were randomly determined at the moment of cosmic inflation, whatever
>these physical constants were just so that given the right conditions, a phenomenon called "life", which exerts it's own VOLITION and exhibits signs of SELF-AWARENESS and SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE just happens to develop and rapidly evolve
>Fedora fags think this is just peachyand makes perfect sense and to imply otherwise you're probably just an indoctrinated christfag anyways
You can't even go muh anthropic fallacy because you have to concede the physical constants were random in the first place, or otherwise you're admitting the constants were anything but randomly determined
>>435881
>this intrinsically dumb zygote quite easily produces (You) because ______
One possible explanation is that consciousness fundamentally depends on symbolic logic and we already know that math underlies our universe. If the universe follows rules of logic, a system within that universe that also follows rules of logic is not antithetical to that universe.
>>435507
>>435920
>causality is anthropocentric
Will every faggot who just keeps cycling between "muh evolution" and "muh anthropic fallacy" just leave the fucking thread already? Fuckin drones
>>435922
>I know everything about the composition of the universe
Scientific dogmatism everybody
>>435941
>It's just a way of saying matter does not act but can only be acted on Jesus Christ
Hold on partner. Are you saying thinking matter has free will, as in it is not affected by other forces?
>>435948
>the universe is just math lol
Give me a break, you sound as delusional as the christfags
>>435956
Aren't you being a little hypocritical when you say "I know that humans are the only thing in the universe that are conscious"?
>>435911
>arguing semantics
he's not arguing semantics at all, but it seems like you're too dumb to understand
>>435941
>Fedora fags think this is just peachyand makes perfect sense
Yes it makes perfect sense, and to imply otherwise means not that you're an indoctrinated christfag, but you don't understand it and haven't studied it enough.
>>435956
What the fuck? Are you trolling or what? You're claiming we're the only ones that are conscious, dumb fuck.
>>435959
How did we evolve at the rate we did if we didn't use our minds to rationally manipulate our environments you clown?
>>435975
Then the universe isn't as blind, (trigger warning) dumb, and random as you're painting it to be. That is the only possible conclusion there is, since life and consciousness obviously exist.
>>435988
Free will is not a prerequisite for rational manipulation of the environment.
>>435954
why?
because you dont like it?
>>436000
I never claimed a blind and dumb universe, I was merely using your words. Life and consciouness is a product of natural processes that we can understand. That we have consciousness does not mean that something "above" us has consciousness. That's shitty logic.
>>435477
let me add one for you
>verum deus tier: deism
>>436003
>There's more than one non-fedorist here.
Still using your little hat meme, huh?
>>436012
>I concede we live in a universe seemingly fine-tuned for consciousness
>there's no reason to believe there's an intelligent principle responsible for that, that's just shitty logic!!!
Nah, from where I'm standing, the logic is sound breh. It's just you don't like the implications. That's fine, I'm not saying it's proof, but let's not pretend there's a "logical" objection to what I'm saying that isn't just a knee-jerk averse reaction to anything that sounds like theism
>>436020
Would you rather I played into your quasi-solipsist fantasy?
>>436030
>Would you rather I played into your quasi-solipsist fantasy?
I have no such fantasy.
>>436003
>>435911
>we are conscious while the matter of the universe is itself apparently unconscious.
and then >>435922 says (paraphrasing)
>light is fast while the universe is slow
and then you said (paraphrasing
>Wow who told you everything about the universe
Course you might not be the first guy but you were defending his point so you might as well answer
The scientific method is anthropic.
Checkmate, atheists.
>>436028
>fine-tuned
I do not concede there was any tuning.
> It's just you don't like the implications.
I'm fine with anything if the evidence supports it. I just know why you kneejerk an intelligence behind it all.
>>436031
dead stuff cannot just spontaneously produce living stuff if there aren't rules for the dead stuff to do be able to do that shit in the first place hooooooooooooly shit you autists
>>436028
>argument from design
lol
>>436044
There were rules; they're called the laws of physics.
>>436041
then if there is no cosmic bias for life, as it were, then you have to concede the tuning was totally random, and we hit a ridiculously lucky metaphysical lottery. yeah, no
>>436040
>the scientific method was made by men so we should put all ideas made by men on an even playing field including smearing ourselves in shit and waiting for the sky-ponies.
>>436050
>then you have to concede the tuning was totally random
No I don't. That's silly.
>>436051
It was made by religious men.
>>436059
Thank god for em. Now we can finally throw off the shackles that even those great minds were bound by.
>>436049
No shit it's the laws of physics, I'm saying the fact they do enable dead stuff to become living stuff is a Big Fucking Deal and cannot be accounted by the laws themselves because then we'd have to ask why these laws and not other ones.
I mean you're literally arguing for a totally random retarded universe that gave us symphonies and art through those very same totally random and retarded laws but yeah man don't ask what's weird about that by the way did you catch Cosmos last night I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE
>>436054
>physical constants weren't fine-tuned or somehow determined
ok
>it wasn't random either
the fuck?
>>436074
1. Why do you think it's a big deal? >muh symphonies
2. Define "life", "living"
>>435966
All I'm saying is that if 3 protons can be lithium, then 3 guanines can mean glycine, and 3 letters can mean a cat, and 3 neuronal impulses can mean "photoreceptor detects light". The commonality is that they all follow some kind of logic.
>>436083
Isn't Neil DeGrasse Tyson just brilliant, though?
>>436074
>the fact they do enable dead stuff to become living stuff is a Big Fucking Deal
The reason you think this is because life is fundamentally more special or important than nonlife. You are life, so you have a bias for life.
>>436080
You have to know what you're talking about when you say "random."
>>436040
do you know what anthropic is?
I dont think you do
>>436091
*because you think life is...
>>436090
The face of defeat, friends.
>>436074
Living matter does not having some magic metaphysical property that makes it "living". It is the arrangement of the matter itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
BTFO
>>436074
>cannot be accounted by the laws themselves because then we'd have to ask why these laws and not other ones
Because then you wouldnt be answering in a phillipino moving pictures forum
>>436083
Are you thick? Is a couple with shit genetics gonna pump out adonises? Is someone with brain damage going to be able to write the next great american novel? How the fuck is something that is perfectly one quality going to produce its opposite quality? How the fuck can you have life and consciousness come out of something that is absolutely, fundamentally random and chaotic? You can't, you have to accept it's not so random, and there's something going on that's not so random and exhibits a tendency to create intelligent life. Ergo, we can assume that what's going on is of the nature of intelligent life on a much higher scale.
>>436102
>tedx
Come on man, you're on 4chan. This is too easy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTJn_DBTnrY
>>436100
But WHY does matter arrange itself in such a way, and WHY is it that when it does it produces life that reproduces?
Can you not understand the implications of this simple question? If not, I fear you're as brainwashed as the Bible thumpers you loathe.
>>436110
The TEDx autists couldn't handle him beating them the fuck out, so they banned his talk.
>>435477
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeaAvNj1DHA
this is better
>>436100
>matter can become living matter when it is arranged a certain way
Yeah, how do you think this happens? Through the atomic interactions that are determined by laws of physics you absolute mongoloid, thanks for supporting my argument
>>436080
The comparison of a circle's circumference to it's diameter is Circumference = π × diameter. This is not random, this is not 'fine tuned' by an intelligent entity, this is merely intrinsic of it's geometric properties as described by mathematics.
The same logic can be applied to the problem of a 'fine-tuned' universe. There is no evidence that any of these properties are actually variable, and not merely intrinsic to the 'geometry' of the universe.
>>436112
What do you think is the answer to that question?
>>436112
It happened to do so. There was not an intelligence or "reason" behind it. Yes it seems arbitrary. Well, that's because it was.
>>436112
The correct interrogative pronoun is HOW.
>>436125
>these laws that produce life are intrinsic to the reality
>somehow, even granting that these laws are fundamental to the inner workings of the universe, and thus inextricably tied up with the phenomenon of life they produce, that life is just a fluke AND it's "shitty logic" to suggest otherwise
... are you okay dude? No shit? Am I speaking in fucking koans or something?
>>436109
Life isn't the opposite of nonlife any more water than is the opposite of nonwater
>fundamentally random and chaotic
Oh please. If the universe were truly random we couldn't even have planets.
>there's something going on that's not so random and exhibits a tendency to create intelligent life.
Ok, what do you think this is? Is it a property of the universe? Maybe like a localized reverse-entropy principle? Or like intelligent beings from another dimension?
>>436109
All these value judgements. You still don't understand evolution, go back to high school.
I'm going to leave you a hint. It didn't happen in one fell swoop like you imagine. There is a gradient of "life." and there is a gradient of "conciousness."
Viruses are on the lower bound of what we would call "alive" There is still discussion.
For consciousness; scientists have had to use all sorts of new terms in order to explain differing levels in animals. Are they self-aware? sapient? meta-aware? merely reacting to the environment? What is it like to be a bat?
>>436117
>muh conspiracy
>>>/cuk/
>>436135
>>436130
No it isn't you doofs, because then you have to explain HOW these laws are the way they are. "it just is" is as much of a cop out as God, and there's no reason why I should prefer it over an intelligent principle just because it's the in thing right now to post neil degrasse tyson quotes on twitter
>>436123
Yes?
>>436136
I don't think the fact that life obeys the laws of physics suggests an intelligence. If you think there's an intelligence, you have to demonstrate that.
>>436142
you're a fucking retard and don't even understand what's being discussed. we live in a universe where evolution produces life and you think the explanation of what life essentially is and how it relates to the essential program of reality ends at "evolution", come on
>>436147
This would just end with an infinite regress.
Protip: we've never solved the Munchausen trilemma
>>436147
>HOW these laws are the way they are
What's wrong with "we don't know," then, for both of us? Don't argue "that these laws are this way which allows life to exist, therefore intelligence"
>>436159
Did you come into this thread late? Go back and read, little boy. The adults are talking.
But what about Apatheists who just don't really care?
>>436147
>how
What is self-replication? It's not too too hard, crystals do it. There are certain arrangements of matter that can create more of those same arrangements.
If the universe is very big, somewhat varied, and contains places that are in a constant state of change, then over a long period of time we may find matter in an arrangement that allows for self-replication.
In principle that's how a universe can allow for the possibility of life.
>>436152
Of course it suggests it if the universe is intelligible to its child intelligences. does it prove? Nah. But is it a stretch? Only cause that fedora's on too tight
>>436170
>Elder God of Gods Now and Forever tier
But this is a discussion board, so get to discussing.
>>436170
>he thinks the unexamined life is worth living
>he doesn't realize the massive implications of the truth or falsity of religion
>>436173
>it suggests
No. It really doesn't. You only think that because your anthropocentric hat's too tight.
>>436173
>it suggests it if the universe is intelligible to its child intelligences.
>If the universe can be understood by an intelligence within the universe, that suggests that the universe itself is intelligent.
I don't know if that really holds up though. If a jungle can be understood by someone in the jungle, does that suggest the jungle is intelligent?
>>436179
>worth
Dude I wish a was a dog in a rich person's house
>>436171
Then there is no reason why we're not essentially just organic crystals with no inner life. But we're not, we have an inner life. Self-replication in organisms gives us self-consciousness. Self-replication doesn't explain consciousness any more than the "load-bearing weight of steel" explains what a bridge is.
>>436168
I didn't even imply life evolves in one fell swoop and you posted some bullshit about evolution no one was even talking about. Fuck off back to reddit
>>436183
nah. Your anger is better than all the +1karmas.
[tips]
>>436183
and you still need to define alive, you coward.
>>436192
please don't hesitate to butt in with your cliffnotes summary of the god delusion again then m8. don't be scared of all those whooshing sounds, it's just the point
>>436197
a gradient of self-awareness in an enclosed or otherwise networked organic system that exhibits motility, resource consumption, and signs of an "inner volitional space", all the way from viruses to cats to humans. literally the opposite of inert matter.
>>436191
I don't know man. Work with me here. What's your proposition? Is it one of these?
>If something can be understood by consciousness, then it must be conscious
>Consciousness can only exist within (or be produced by) another consciousness
The second one ends in an infinite loop, so it's probably not that
>>436183
What would you say a bridge is?
>>436199
yeah i'm going to keep doing that. Because other readers of this thread are embarrassed for you - and that serves as a way better argument for my points than engaging someone as deluded as you.
>>436203
I'm not sure if viruses can be said to have signs of an "inner volitional space", or to have self-awareness at all.
>>436179
>He thinks life is worth examining and not just living
>He doesn't realize that whether or not religion is true or false has no real bearing on our lives on a existential level
>He doesn't realize the only impact on our lives is the social and cultural influence
>>436211
he doesn't even understand those terms. it's copy pasted from somewhere, surely.
>>435477
>Shit tier: the opposite of my beliefs
>Meh tier: something similar to my beliefs but flawed in some obvious way
>God tier: my beliefs
Where did the matter from the Big Bang come from?
>>436210
>fat neckbeards who can only parrot the same 2 arguments are embarrassed for me
mhm, sure stings bud
>>436211
whatever dude, it's a gradient. first we get motility, self-replication then we get plants then we get animals yadda yadda yadda.
>>436218
>He doesn't realize that whether or not religion is true or false has no real bearing on our lives on a existential level
>He doesn't realize the only impact on our lives is the social and cultural influence
whatever makes those piss bottles not smell as bad when you're trying to get some sleep, weebfaggot
>>436218
>implying examining life is not as way of living it
>implying going to heaven or hell isn't a big deal
>implying environmental determinism
>>435779
>b-but particles can't magically become sentient
Why is it hard to believe that compounded increases in perception have led to the ability to perceive perception?
This has had two billion years to evolve. That's two million lifetimes of Rome, over a hundred thousand spans of recorded history.
>>436226
How do theists keep projecting their behavior on other people and not realize it?
>>436228
I agree it's a gradient but I think consciousness is only found in animals with brains. I don't think sponges or plants or viruses are conscious.
>>436227
It wasn't immediately matter, and we don't know.
>>436228
None of these are arguments, only insults
>these idiots can't rationalise arguments beyond what their cult leaders Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris told them was possible
>>436236
Are you sure it didn't come from nothing?
>>436250
I'm not sure of anything. I don't know.
>>436235
it can be argued plants have a (very, very) dim inner life, since they show physiological signs of arousal if, say, another plant next to them is getting watered or torn apart.
think of it as a gradient that climbs at an exponential rate. first we have just life, then the consciousness of animals, then the consciousness + self-awareness (in other words, consciousness of consciousness) of humans, then who knows what
>>436232
Still. Not. Getting. It.
the notion that not only perception, but ordered, stable perception can proceed from blind, arbitrary laws is ludicrous. either physical laws are specifically the way they are for their tendency to give rise to consciousness in complex neural networks, or we have to accept that the potentiality for life isn't "built-in" but just happened anyways
>>436227
That's a billion dollar question. Our best telescopes can only see 570 million years after the big bang. Cosmic microwave background also has a lot of clues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGSY8p7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
>>436257
You're the ones projecting. I was an atheist when I was a teen, too.
>>436262
Nah, you guys are projecting hard.
>I was an atheist
And why aren't you?
>>436268
Literally not at all.
>>436232
By the way, I want to make perfectly clear: I know this is exactly what happened.
I read the God Delusion. I used to have a big book of quotes about atheism I'd eat up. I know all this shit.
The point is that it's remarkable that matter does produces consciousness in the first place - and don't say "why is it remarkable? it's just what matter does!"
Exactly.
>>436259
I hesitate to say that's consciousness, since two nonliving particles in quantum entanglement also "know" what measurement the other has taken, and computers can respond to changes in other computers.
>>436268
No. Some religious people might be upset that theology would become a science though. Especially if the scientific evidence is different from their previous theological beliefs.
>>436275
>The point is that it's remarkable that matter does produces consciousness in the first place
And I know why you think it's remarkable.
>>436276
Even if we can't definitively ascribe a kind of proto-consciousness to plants, they still exhibit the other signs and so the definition holds.
>>436228
>whatever dude, it's a gradient. first we get motility, self-replication then we get plants then we get animals yadda yadda yadda.
Right, and there is no clearly marked line between what things are alive and what things are not alive. You have put viruses in the category of "alive" but I think most biologists disagree.
Let's remember what we are trying to establish here:
"Being Alive" is a very fuzzy category that means something different for each organizm you ascibe it to (viroids, plants, animals, people). It's not a special unique condition or a magical aura placed on us.
So, life and living creatures are not the ultimate "goal" of the universe. No fine-tuning.
>>436229
>>implying examining life is not as way of living it
>Implying I'm going to argue with that logic
>Implying that examining your existence and merely expecting it are not both equal trains of though
>Implying what really matters isn't how you apply those feelings into your every day life be it constrictive or destructive
>>implying going to heaven or hell isn't a big deal
>Implying it is to someone without a belief in the afterlife or with a non-binary afterlife judgment system
>>436275
I suppose it is remarkable, but where do we go from there? It's not very fun to say "It's remarkable!" and just drop it.
I suppose the next question is How, but for me "self replicating arrangements" is already a plausible mechanism. I guess the next step after that would be trying to find a metaphysical answer, but I don't even know where to start with that.
>>436283
It doesn't even have to be life. We can simplify it to "organic complexity", or just plain complexity. The complexity of organisms implies rulesets at work here other than just the slow running-down of entropy and random billiard ball smashing of atoms. And no, I'm not saying life disproves entropy. The entropy you "reduce" by cleaning your room is just dissipated as heat instead.
>>436285
I'm talking about the quest for truth. Obviously, if you don't believe in heaven or hell it's not a problem, but you need to be sure you're right.
>>436290
I dunno bro, I'm only ever arguing for fedoras to take the smug "we've got it all figured out, what do you know about it heh" bullshit down a notch, and at this point, saying the universe is of an intelligent origin is not that fucking crazy just because we can describe how its components work very well. Personally I have my own metaphysics but I wouldn't foist all that on you from such a simple argument.
>>436298
Earth is not a closed system
>>436303
And I'm talking about isn't whether or not you follow that quest for truth. It's how you apply what you've learned to how you act as a person
>>436311
I've tried not to be smug. I've met smug insufferable religious people, but I have to deal with them, too. I'm just arguing that saying there's an intelligence behind everything is absurdly anthropocentric, and that's why it's crazy.
>>436259
Yeah. It's exactly what happened. Crazier things happened. Fins became motorized limbs which became wings twice in tetrapods (reptiles to birds and the evolution of bats). Literal flight. Those fish also evolved to live on land, as insane of a feat as mammals growing moving back into water--oh wait.
Evolution has pulled off crazier recorded feats. This isn't as insane as you think.
>>436298
What about crystals?
>>436340
I'm all for it.
>Knowledge for knowledge's sake is just as barbarous as hatred of knowledge. [Knowledge must be] tamed to fit with life, so that one may live what one has learned.
>>436345
Also what the fuck with this captcha.
>>436357
>It's perfectly plausible it really is just natural processes all the way down
But it's still incredibly anthropocentric. You're projecting a human characteristic to the supernatural.
>>436351
Fedora tippers take away the wrong lessons from Nietzsche
>>436366
No, a life characteristic. A sufficiently evolved life characteristic. I presume were talking about intelligence and not what you quoted, otherwise I don't follow
>>436377
Okay, it's too life-centric.
>>436392
And you're too matter-centric. I have no reason to believe the universe isn't life-centric just because what, it's really big and empty and there's lots of rocks floating around? What does it mean to be X-centric in this discussion anyways? Why should I give ontological primacy to inert matter? For what reason? The argument from quantity? Why not quality? You're just as biased as me
>>436426
>And you're too matter-centric
How?
>I have no reason to believe the universe isn't life-centric
The default position should be that it isn't unless evidence supports it. You're seeing a pattern and associating it with intelligence, a property of life. I didn't make such an assertion with matter.
>>436472
I mean I don't know what you want. The skies to open up and god to bellow "life's a miracle, don't be a dick yo"?
I mean at some point you're gonna have to make a choice. I can look at the miracle of consciousness, which I think I've adequately argued is as much a byproduct of physical laws as black holes are, and see this miracle for what it is compared to the blind physical drives of the rest of the universe, or you choose not to. Which of course is your choice, but I don't think it's fair to say there's absolutely no reason to believe the universe is life centric.
If life just existing in the first place doesn't make the cut, then matter just existing shouldn't make the cut for the reductive fedora universe either.
>>436496
>The skies to open up and god to bellow "life's a miracle, don't be a dick yo"?
That would be a form of evidence.
> I don't think it's fair to say there's absolutely no reason to believe the universe is life centric.
Of course we can't possibly know that, but my theory is why we think it's life-centric, is because we're life, and therefore think we're special. Of course that's just my theory.
>I can look at the miracle of consciousness,
I'm not trying to stop you from believing what makes you comfortable. If you believe it's a miracle from on high then good on you.
>>436518
I know, I totally admit I could be dead fucking wrong and there's just shit going on we can never wrap our heads around. I personally believe in a higher power, but well all find out eventually won't we
>>436589
>well all find out eventually won't we
no
>>435477
>>Meh tier: people who are atheists because "lol religion is for dumb sheeple! I dont need imaginary friends!!!"
That only happens in the US. Atheism in the rest of the world is quite devoid of fedoralism and assorted retardedness.
>>436596
We all gotta die mane
>>436642
what does dying have to do with finding out the intrinsic identity of our reality?
>>435630
>>believing that something can come from nothing
I don't believe it came from nothing, that's stupid.
I believe it always was.
>>436662
If you blip out, there wasn't any
If you don't, well
>>436704
>If you blip out, there wasn't any
The problem is, it's not possible to experience this if it is the case. I suppose knowledge isn't valuable anymore after your mind ceases to function regardless.
>>436704
ah, so you were arguing in favour of a personal god.
>>436750
Not at all. You're projecting
>>435477
>setting the goalposts in your favour
shiggydiggy.
>>435951
No one was openly irreligious in those centuries. Almost all universities were literally owned by the church(es). Many private libraries belonged to bishops and so on, too. Religious environments were literally the only "knowledge repositories". You had to be literate (i.e. no poorfags) and of good social standing to gain access to knowledge in the past. You also had to have time to spend on pursuing knowledge full-time and not starving to death, which meant rich benefactors, which again meant the church.
It isn't a testament to religiousness so much as just a snapshot of society at the time, and the all-pervasive control the church(es) had.
>>436814
>monks and priests weren't religious
Take your modern morals imposed on the past out of here.
>>436858
I didn't say they weren't.
What I said still stands. We think today of especially religious people as anachronistic weirdos flying in the face of reason (which they are). But in earlier times, as the church(es) were so pervasive, it was merely the backdrop to all life. A life of study was one of privilege, and as I said, religious life was one of the few outlets for this, that encouraged study of natural sciences at leisure. It's no surprise that most early scientists were from the gentry or rich merchant families -- peasants were literally uneducated. The only (low-born) exceptions you will find are those who joined religious orders, but then they are not peasants anymore...
So of course they were mostly 'religious', it's the only paradigm they had. That doesn't mean you can claim in modern times that religion is better than secular science or some other derpy statement. (Not that you are necessarily, just nipping that in bud now).
>>436028
One could also argue that there are many universes as well.
>>436954
By the same stretch you can't claim science is secular because secularism taints all aspects of life today. You look at through a lens of atheism but that's all you know.
>>435505
So it's a theory.
Unquestionably following someone spouting bullshit, and a book simply because it's old, never getting logical explanations for anything but doing it anyway.
Unquestionably denying the possibility of something that cannot be comprehended, as if muh science somehow has factually and objectively solved every mystery in existence.
Contemplating the balance between the two and then deciding to just picking and following one of them because of the fear from their questions or lack of will to think about it any further.
It's all terrible. Fuck everyone.
>>437082
Same question could be levied your way, but note I was the guy simply asking for an explanation.
>GOD TIER
Strongmen who adopt religious institutions or secularism along their grand vision regardless of theological/intellectual justification (e.g. Constantine, Napoleon)
>GOOD TIER
Clergy/intellectuals who produce things of note (religious or not)
>MEH TIER
Conformists
>SHIT TIER
Stance on religion based on pure theology
>COMPROMISING THE SECURITY OF THE STATE TIER
Militant counterbelievers/nonbelievers
>>437113
I'm not certain of anything. That's my point. There could be a god. There could be reincarnation. There could be flying spaghetti monsters. There could be nothing at all.
>>435630
Where did that creator come from then?
To put it simply, there is no event within time, within this universe, that cannot be explained by the laws of physics.
who gives a shit, honestly.
>arguing about religion and philosophy with the same 11 other people on a Vietnamese cartoon website
>>437634
>not arguing about philosophy and human nature with the same five other people anonymously for a decade
>>437087
Only in the colloquial use of the word.
It lacks any of the features of a scientific theory though.
>>435845
Each 3 base pair sequence in your DNA encodes for a protein (except for the three that are stop codons).
That is genetic code.
Once it's been translated to mRNA and sent to a ribosome it is blindly read from a start codon to finish or a stop codon.
The resulting Protein fulfills a function that has been reached by billions of years of progressive refinement through mutation and selection over countless generations because DNA is not invincible, it regularly breaks and has to be repaired through various sometimes flawed processes, resulting in different base pair sequences than before as well as possibly resulting in more or less base pairs than before.
>almost 2016
>being seduced by warm fuzzy feeling in my tummy
>pants on head cousin fucking retarde tier: gnostics
>implying we aren't all the entire universe simultaneously woven into different algorithms
>implying Satan exists, and that god is not a singular entity omnipresent in all information
>implying god gives a shit about existence through the lens of your comfort, and that he should cater to you being a shithead because you can't even understand that the messages of peace by acceptance of the singular nature of the duality illusion in all the doctrines of religion across the world are essentially the pathway to understanding god's intentions
>implying you're not god's cell division
>Even if there was no entity like that, the sun would still essentially be your god because it affords you life
>implying God wants to be feared, rather than understood
>>437936
>implying there is a god, or if there is, that he gives a single fuck about any of the fuckers on this planet
>>435501
Nice meme.
>>437857
Each 3 base pair codes for a nucleotide. The protein is the whole strand from the start word to the end word.
Interesting thing is that some sequences can code more than one protein, due to differences in folding.
I believe in a God but I'm not dumb enough to not believe in science. Like all this shit perfectly happens, our planet is just placed perfectly? Greenhouse gas effect? There's no way a God didn't do that shit
