I see the primal urgency. But the fact that it is primal does not mean that the belief was fabricated. That urgency, that longing for immortality could equally have been put in us because immortality is what we were meant for - like our primal need for love.
Of course it does not mean it was fabricated. Any life form that does not have this primal urgency (from proto-cells on up) likely died eons ago. Darwinian selection is likely the largest contributing factor albeit not the only factor.
Well, I'm glad the evolution of the species was engineered in such a way as to retain it: God is eternal, and the imprint and 'signature' of the eternal one who made us, would seem to be stamped through us like a stick of rock, like a metaphysical 'gene'. It is fitting that of all things to remain eternally constant throughout the evolution of the species, should be the innate awareness of and striving for eternity itself. It is like, looking into a mirror, we see and recognise our own reflection.
Sorry, but although your suggestion is one of many scenarios, it is not self-evident. If God touched off the Big Bang, and then walked away forever, the Darwinian selection process with cellular mutation would still exist. There is some evidence that during the Cambrian Explosion, a burst of unlikely structural life forms began to take hold. It would be unwise to rule out Intelligent Design during this era of the Earth's history. But to generalize the "will to survive" to metaphysical and spiritual forces is, sorry to say, the first step toward delusional thinking.
In favor of your point, however, something is amiss. All the semi-logarithmic curves in nature have a mathematical base of 1.618033988749895... As a believer in mathematical rigor, I'll accept that this number could be the signature of God. Just don't go generalize this possibility to other concepts if doing so makes you feel warm and fuzzy. The discipline of science must always stand firmly like the metaphorical rock that you mention.
It's self-evident to me. :-P. A lot of things in life and in science aren't self-evident. But joking aside I get that anything is hard to appreciate for anyone if their entire worldview and concept of themselves and the world would be turned upside down if they accepted it.
What is self-evident to me, is that your myopic distinction between reality and conceptual conjecture is not an appreciation at all; just sort of a narcissistic sense of superiority that your esoteric concepts elude all but a few self proclaimed aristocrats like yourself. Perhaps you haven't outgrown your need for happy thoughts.
Why not just go and watch Fox News? Your soul would find comfort in their repetition of one side on all issues. Joking aside, Agnosticism has no world view. But, it demands consideration of both sides of any argument. And, that includes yours.
Well, well, well. We've come to the point of incivility at last. You disappoint me; you're not a mindless troll and I expected better from you.
Alas, if I were an aristocrat I wouldn't have to spend my days and evenings teaching students to avoid Fox News, and would then have more time to sit around perfecting my arguments so that I can respond cleverly to people like you. But to what end? Life is short. Judging and pigeonholing aren't hallmarks of a mind open to civil discussion.
Worldview is a fuzzy concept, but we all have a lens through which we look at the world. That is what I mean by worldview. If we had no lens, no internal working model of how the world works, we would be unintelligent indeed. If you did not have a lens, you would not be taking issue with mine.
I am indeed assuming I am right a priori. Who would go through life assuming that their view of the world was wrong? If you weren't also fairly sure you're right you wouldn't be able to argue so much... ah, how do I put it politely... "conviction". You are arguing because you think that I am wrong and that what you are saying is right, or you wouldn't be arguing. Whether superiority comes into your attitude is not for me to judge.
Sorry all I heard is bullshit bullshit the clockmaker fallacy bullshit.
With your little clockmaker fallacy all it does is create a bigger question. And that question is. Who created god and who created the one that created god and so on and so forth. This is following your own logic.
Why would God need to be created? That's what I don't get about the clockmaker fallacy argument. Being distinct from anything else in existence, he has the unique quality that he doesn't need to be created.
I mean, people who don't believe in God normally don't get wound up about the idea of the universe having existed for eternity, so I don't get wound up about the idea of God existing for eternity.
And why do we need a god to have been created? God is unnecessary in explaining our existence. The Bible is factually wrong on many parts and often contradicts itself. Our existence can easily be explained through evolution. Saying that because we are so unique that a god had to have created us is intellectually weak minded and factually wrong. All you have shown is that you have a poor grasp of logic and a lot of lazy thinking
You're talking about God as if he were a 'means' to something; something of service to humans, like a conceptual tool. If God is just an idea and logic is all you are basing your conclusions on then perhaps yes he does need to be 'necessary' to exist. But my point is that if God is a real being then he doesn't need to be 'necessary' to us. In fact, he could not be a means to human ends without ceasing to be a creator God: it is not in the nature of a creator to be subject to his/her own work. He would exist whether we found a 'purpose' or necessity for his existence, or not, and since he made us it would rather be his prerogative to treat us humans as a means, rather than the other way around.
Do you believe god exist?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I see the primal urgency. But the fact that it is primal does not mean that the belief was fabricated. That urgency, that longing for immortality could equally have been put in us because immortality is what we were meant for - like our primal need for love.
--
McBean
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Of course it does not mean it was fabricated. Any life form that does not have this primal urgency (from proto-cells on up) likely died eons ago. Darwinian selection is likely the largest contributing factor albeit not the only factor.
--
Grunewald
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well, I'm glad the evolution of the species was engineered in such a way as to retain it: God is eternal, and the imprint and 'signature' of the eternal one who made us, would seem to be stamped through us like a stick of rock, like a metaphysical 'gene'. It is fitting that of all things to remain eternally constant throughout the evolution of the species, should be the innate awareness of and striving for eternity itself. It is like, looking into a mirror, we see and recognise our own reflection.
--
McBean
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Sorry, but although your suggestion is one of many scenarios, it is not self-evident. If God touched off the Big Bang, and then walked away forever, the Darwinian selection process with cellular mutation would still exist. There is some evidence that during the Cambrian Explosion, a burst of unlikely structural life forms began to take hold. It would be unwise to rule out Intelligent Design during this era of the Earth's history. But to generalize the "will to survive" to metaphysical and spiritual forces is, sorry to say, the first step toward delusional thinking.
In favor of your point, however, something is amiss. All the semi-logarithmic curves in nature have a mathematical base of 1.618033988749895... As a believer in mathematical rigor, I'll accept that this number could be the signature of God. Just don't go generalize this possibility to other concepts if doing so makes you feel warm and fuzzy. The discipline of science must always stand firmly like the metaphorical rock that you mention.
--
Grunewald
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's self-evident to me. :-P. A lot of things in life and in science aren't self-evident. But joking aside I get that anything is hard to appreciate for anyone if their entire worldview and concept of themselves and the world would be turned upside down if they accepted it.
--
McBean
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
What is self-evident to me, is that your myopic distinction between reality and conceptual conjecture is not an appreciation at all; just sort of a narcissistic sense of superiority that your esoteric concepts elude all but a few self proclaimed aristocrats like yourself. Perhaps you haven't outgrown your need for happy thoughts.
Why not just go and watch Fox News? Your soul would find comfort in their repetition of one side on all issues. Joking aside, Agnosticism has no world view. But, it demands consideration of both sides of any argument. And, that includes yours.
--
Grunewald
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
Well, well, well. We've come to the point of incivility at last. You disappoint me; you're not a mindless troll and I expected better from you.
Alas, if I were an aristocrat I wouldn't have to spend my days and evenings teaching students to avoid Fox News, and would then have more time to sit around perfecting my arguments so that I can respond cleverly to people like you. But to what end? Life is short. Judging and pigeonholing aren't hallmarks of a mind open to civil discussion.
Worldview is a fuzzy concept, but we all have a lens through which we look at the world. That is what I mean by worldview. If we had no lens, no internal working model of how the world works, we would be unintelligent indeed. If you did not have a lens, you would not be taking issue with mine.
I am indeed assuming I am right a priori. Who would go through life assuming that their view of the world was wrong? If you weren't also fairly sure you're right you wouldn't be able to argue so much... ah, how do I put it politely... "conviction". You are arguing because you think that I am wrong and that what you are saying is right, or you wouldn't be arguing. Whether superiority comes into your attitude is not for me to judge.
Sorry all I heard is bullshit bullshit the clockmaker fallacy bullshit.
With your little clockmaker fallacy all it does is create a bigger question. And that question is. Who created god and who created the one that created god and so on and so forth. This is following your own logic.
--
Grunewald
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Why would God need to be created? That's what I don't get about the clockmaker fallacy argument. Being distinct from anything else in existence, he has the unique quality that he doesn't need to be created.
I mean, people who don't believe in God normally don't get wound up about the idea of the universe having existed for eternity, so I don't get wound up about the idea of God existing for eternity.
--
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
McBean
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
And why do we need a god to have been created? God is unnecessary in explaining our existence. The Bible is factually wrong on many parts and often contradicts itself. Our existence can easily be explained through evolution. Saying that because we are so unique that a god had to have created us is intellectually weak minded and factually wrong. All you have shown is that you have a poor grasp of logic and a lot of lazy thinking
--
Grunewald
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're talking about God as if he were a 'means' to something; something of service to humans, like a conceptual tool. If God is just an idea and logic is all you are basing your conclusions on then perhaps yes he does need to be 'necessary' to exist. But my point is that if God is a real being then he doesn't need to be 'necessary' to us. In fact, he could not be a means to human ends without ceasing to be a creator God: it is not in the nature of a creator to be subject to his/her own work. He would exist whether we found a 'purpose' or necessity for his existence, or not, and since he made us it would rather be his prerogative to treat us humans as a means, rather than the other way around.
OP: I think she is saying in a sloppy way that God has always existed back to negative infinity. Remember the analogy (matter:distance::motion:time).
--
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
I agree. I also think she’s an idiot at this point. And a joke who can’t even follow their own logic.