Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"THIS is a specious argument. You have ZERO evidence to support this notion. "

Not so. Every bit of evidence we have at our disposal says it MAY be that chimpanzees also eventually evolve some higher functions, in a few million years, (if left to do so). I didn't guarantee it would happen, I guaranteed that it is a possible.

And, it wasn't an an argument, it was a statement. yes, dolphins MAY walk upright one day, just as their ancestors walked on all fours. of course, they will no longer be dolphins, they will be a new species.

You have ZERO evidence. NONE!

"You have ZERO evidence. NONE!"

False. We (stop with this "you" language, the evidence doesn't belong to me) have plenty of evidence that suggests it is possible that the descendants of chimpanzees, or any mammal could become self-aware. The strongest, of course, is that it has already happened. Really, the argument can end there, as i have proven it is possible for the evolution of self-awareness, which is all that was required of me. The onus would then be on you to prove it can only happen once in the entire history of the universe. More on that later.

Mathematically, i could present theoretical evidence that the odds of it happening at all may be small, but the odds of it happening exactly once between the beginning and end of our habitable planet are even smaller. (extend that to the universe, and you get a sense of how silly it is to think that life itself has not evolved elsewhere in the universe)

which brings us to the next point, in that confining this idea to "only earth's organisms" is arbitrary, and i only really have to argue that it is possible for this to happen somewhere in the universe in the past, present, or future. you are arguing "uniqueness", and you don't get to make the rule that it only extends to the edge of our atmosphere, the edge of our solar system, or the edge of our galaxy. Either it is "unique", or it is not. Unlike subjectivity, uniqueness does not come in degrees. Rareness does.

but, to really flesh out the argument, we have to understand how much an organism can change over long periods of time... like, a billion years. We can see how much our species has changed over the last 10 million years. Given the period of time in which evolution will be free to work on the brains of existing species, there is good reason to believe that the same forces of selection which caused humans to evolve this trait will cause its evolution in another species. Maybe loooong after we're gone. And that species will, no doubt, marvel at the "uniqueness" of itself, just as you are.

 

[Boss]

"You have ZERO evidence. NONE!"

False. We (stop with this "you" language, the evidence doesn't belong to me) have plenty of evidence that suggests it is possible that the descendants of chimpanzees, or any mammal could become self-aware. The strongest, of course, is that it has already happened. Really, the argument can end there, as i have proven it is possible for the evolution of self-awareness, which is all that was required of me.

Mathematically, i could present theoretical evidence that the odds of it happening at all may be small, but the odds of it happening exactly once between the beginning and end of our habitable planet are even smaller. (extend that to the universe, and you get a sense of how silly it is to think that life itself has not evolved elsewhere in the universe)

which brings us to the next point, in that confining this idea to "only earth's organisms" is arbitrary, and i only really have to argue that it is possible for this to happen somewhere in the universe in the past, present, or future. you are arguing "uniqueness", and you don't get to make the rule that it only extends to the edge of our atmosphere, the edge of our solar system, or the edge of our galaxy. Either it is "unique", or it is not. Unlike subjectivity, uniqueness does not come in degrees. Rareness does.

but, to really flesh out the argument, we have to understand how much an organism can change over long periods of time... like, a billion years. Given the period of time in which evolution will be free to work on the brains of existing species, there is good reason to believe that the same forces of selection which caused humans to evolve this trait will cause it's evolution in another species. Maybe loooong after we're gone. And that species will, no doubt, marvel at the "uniqueness" of itself, just as you are.

In the realm of philosophical "possibility" anything is possible. That is NOT a scientific argument. Theories are NOT evidence. If you are under some delusion that theories ARE evidence, you've completely missed the meaning, purpose and intent of the scientific method.

As for "uniqueness" ...do I need to pull the dictionary definition of that word as well? It seems we're having trouble with simple basic English now. Until you can present me with empirical evidence of other species clearly exhibiting spirituality and inspiration, you can't argue that it's not unique to humans. IF all you have are speculative theories of what MIGHT one day be.... you have ZIPPOLA!

 

[Boss]

which brings us to the next point, in that confining this idea to "only earth's organisms" is arbitrary...

A-Gain.... Until you can offer some sort of empirical evidence organisms exist elsewhere, we have to confine our idea to organisms on Earth. There is nothing "arbitrary" about that. Do we need to look that word up too?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"

1. of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse."

*** Notice... not "arising from some external impulse", but rather, "as if arising from external impulse".... nope, doesn't make your point. It might even make MY point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's not how this works... you don't get to make any claim you like and then say it's true unless I prove you wrong. You can say "it's possible", and then I would have to prove you wrong to call that false.

My counter would be that, these qualities you call "unique" come in degrees. Self-awareness? we find it in degree. "Inspiration"? Your dictionary definition requires self-awareness for it to be true: "as if coming from an external source", which implies observation by the internal source, by your own constraints. the onus would be on you to show that one of the animals in which we measure degrees of self-awareness does NOT "feel" this way, which you could not do. You have left yourself unable to prove your own assertion, here. to argue it is "possible" would release much of your burden, but that is not what you are doing. you are asserting it as truth, and you carry the burden that comes with doing that.

I, on the other hand, acknowledge as "possible" that what you are saying is true. I argue it to be unlikely, and almost certainly false, given that i have no reason whatsoever to believe our brains are anything but physical systems. if there is any "outside source" inspiring my brain, then I think it comes in the form of chemicals and electrical reactions.

Would you like to suggest an alternative source?

 

[Boss]

"

1. of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse."

*** Notice... not "arising from some external impulse", but rather, "as if arising from external impulse".... nope, doesn't make your point. It might even make MY point.

Now you're parsing the definitions? Wow!

 

[Boss]

That's not how this works... you don't get to make any claim you like and then say it's true unless I prove you wrong. You can say "it's possible", and then I would have to prove you wrong to call that false.

My counter would be that, these qualities you call "unique" come in degrees. Self-awareness? we find it in degree. "Inspiration"? Your dictionary definition requires self-awareness for it to be true: "as if coming from an external source", which implies observation by the internal source, by your own constraints. the onus would be on you to show that one of the animals in which we measure degrees of self-awareness does NOT "feel" this way, which you could not do. You have left yourself unable to prove your own assertion, here. to argue it is "possible" would release much of your burden, but that is not what you are doing. you are asserting it as truth, and you carry the burden that comes with doing that.

I, on the other hand, acknowledge as "possible" that what you are saying is true. I argue it to be unlikely, and almost certainly false, given that i have no reason whatsoever to believe our brains are anything but physical systems. if there is any "outside source" inspiring my brain, then I think it comes in the form of chemicals and electrical reactions.

Would you like to suggest an alternative source?

You're still failing to support ANY of your arguments. I think we're done here.

 

[BreezeWood]

Until you can present me with empirical evidence of other species clearly exhibiting spirituality and inspiration, you can't argue that it's not unique to humans.

what is your example of an organism that does not have the qualities you claim strictly for yourself.


* there is no such organism in existence.


the uniqueness of humanity is seen below, nothing much the rest of the inhabitants of Garden Earth care much to simulate including some humans that have not lost their sanity.

 

[BreezeWood]

I, on the other hand, acknowledge as "possible" that what you are saying is true. I argue it to be unlikely, and almost certainly false, given that i have no reason whatsoever to believe our brains are anything but physical systems. if there is any "outside source" inspiring my brain, then I think it comes in the form of chemicals and electrical reactions.

Would you like to suggest an alternative source?

the quality of sight for one for those who care not to tell themselves what they are seeing.

you might consider the other half Flora in regards to your thoughts. they manage at the same level of intensity as any other organism on planet Earth - "then I think it comes in the form of chemicals and electrical reactions", where in a plant does that occur.

 

[RWS]

I'm just saying that if there is such a thing as spirituality, and that spirituality is only possible for certain life forms, then that spirituality has a physical connection with those life forms.

My question, once we determine what has a spirit and what doesn't, is what the physical difference is.

What do you mean by this? Would you argue that physicality is only possible for certain life forms? Would that make any rational sense?

We have to remember that "spirituality" is only a word we invented to describe something. What is being described? The simple answer is, "that which is not physical in nature." But it's really more complicated than that because there are things not physical in nature which are also not spiritual. A fantasy, for example. What we are describing is something beyond physical nature yet also connected with it.

Spirituality is possible for everything because spirituality exists. Do all living things have "spirits"? That's an entirely different question. And it's an entirely different question as to which living things "spiritually connect." Humans appear to be the only animal that makes a conscious spiritual connection and possess spiritual awareness. I don't think it's coincidence humans are the most intellectually advanced life as well.

All life forms have physicality. So Spirituality, by your definition is something that is not physical in nature. Yet some physical objects possess it.

So my question was, what is the threshold between an object that has spirituality and one that doesn't?

Like I said, does a rock have spirituality? I hope you say yes.

And please quote the whole post, not just what you want to argue. Tell me about how you think about spirituality among different physical things?

Whole post follows:

I'm not quibbling, I'm just saying that if there is such a thing as spirituality, and that spirituality is only possible for certain life forms, then that spirituality has a physical connection with those life forms.

My question, once we determine what has a spirit and what doesn't, is what the physical difference is.

Do rocks have a spirit?
Do bacteria have a spirit?
Do plants have a spirit?
Do fish have a spirit?
Do reptiles have a spirit?
Do dogs have a spirit?

etc... once we can agree on what does and doesn't have a spirit, we can try to find the physical difference that enables that spirit.

 

[Boss]

All life forms have physicality. So Spirituality, by your definition is something that is not physical in nature. Yet some physical objects possess it.

So my question was, what is the threshold between an object that has spirituality and one that doesn't?

Like I said, does a rock have spirituality? I hope you say yes.

And please quote the whole post, not just what you want to argue. Tell me about how you think about spirituality among different physical things?

Whole post follows:

No. Some physical objects possess spirits. Spirituality is the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"

1. of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse."

*** Notice... not "arising from some external impulse", but rather, "as if arising from external impulse".... nope, doesn't make your point. It might even make MY point.

Now you're parsing the definitions? Wow!

Yes, of course I am. If you are going to arbitrarily choose one dictionary service's statement as "the authority", then we are going to inspect what it means. I know you were hoping for a 'Mic drop' there, but this is a discussion, not a lecture.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does the existence of aliens preclude a Creator?

secureteam10

 

[Boss]

"

1. of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse."

*** Notice... not "arising from some external impulse", but rather, "as if arising from external impulse".... nope, doesn't make your point. It might even make MY point.

Now you're parsing the definitions? Wow!

Yes, of course I am. If you are going to arbitrarily choose one dictionary service's statement as "the authority", then we are going to inspect what it means. I know you were hoping for a 'Mic drop' there, but this is a discussion, not a lecture.

You asked what is the function of the spirit and why is it necessary?
I replied, we have a word for it... Inspiration.
You misapplied the word to several examples and I called you on it.
You denied you misapplied the word and accused me of determining my own meaning.
I posted the dictionary's definition of the word.
You want to parse the definition.

Anyone with a scroll wheel can roll up the thread and read it all for themselves.

This stopped being a discussion when I answered your question and you responded with nonsense.
You continue to respond with nonsense.
Consider the mic dropped.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The Bibles says that man was created in God's image, but, oddly enough, does not say what god needs a penis for.

No more guesses please, we now have the post of the day!

Bravo!

 

[MarkDuffy]

I'm just saying that if there is such a thing as spirituality, and that spirituality is only possible for certain life forms, then that spirituality has a physical connection with those life forms.

My question, once we determine what has a spirit and what doesn't, is what the physical difference is.

What do you mean by this? Would you argue that physicality is only possible for certain life forms? Would that make any rational sense?

We have to remember that "spirituality" is only a word we invented to describe something. What is being described? The simple answer is, "that which is not physical in nature." But it's really more complicated than that because there are things not physical in nature which are also not spiritual. A fantasy, for example. What we are describing is something beyond physical nature yet also connected with it.

Spirituality is possible for everything because spirituality exists. Do all living things have "spirits"? That's an entirely different question. And it's an entirely different question as to which living things "spiritually connect." Humans appear to be the only animal that makes a conscious spiritual connection and possess spiritual awareness. I don't think it's coincidence humans are the most intellectually advanced life as well.

There are a lot of words here saying nothing

 

[MarkDuffy]

.

But it's really more complicated than that because there are things not physical in nature which are also not spiritual. A fantasy, for example. What we are describing is something beyond physical nature yet also connected with it.

A fantasy, for example ...

I can't help to wonder how that makes sense, what is a fantasy ... howabout the wind, physical without a Spirit though tangentially Mother Nature is given spiritual qualities that could include a hurricane. or gravity

just being alive is spiritual irregardless the physical form and for some that quality is interrelated to all beings. the microbial zika virus could potentially wipe humanity off the face of Earth ...

it could not be what it is without a spirit.

But what is the function of the spirit? Why is it necessary?

It is the new and improved "proof" of God. The best part is its immunity from argument.

 

[MarkDuffy]

But what is the function of the spirit? Why is it necessary?

We developed a special word to describe this.

Inspiration.

the spirit inspires the Zika virus? How? Or, are you saying only humans have spirits? The other poster was being more general.

Apparently it was necessary for the spirit to create Zika.

I wonder if the spirit of the raptured Zika will cause trouble in heaven?

 

[MarkDuffy]

"Wind, however, is simply atoms moving rapidly. It's physical, not spiritual."

By the same token, thoughts are simply atoms and electrical impulses moving about. Every inspired thought you have ever had is the result of physical activity in your brain.

But it's really not.

but it really is!

If it were as you "simply" conclude, we'd see the great technological achievements of the chimpanzee who we share 96% of our DNA with.

I have corrected your nonsense before but you keep forgetting.

1) That last 4% is really important.

2) Technology requires the exacting anatomy to make physical objects, oral mechanisms and writing to pass on high-level knowledge to others. Chimps do not have those. Technology is a result of advanced civilization.

You're explaining the pathology of how thought is processed in our brains... it has nothing whatsoever to do with inspiration.

You probably need a hyphen in your invented word path-ology. LOL

He exactly defined inspiration. No need to hocus pocus. You can thank Chuck Darwin.

 

[MarkDuffy]

That's a specious argument. Just because our brains can process thoughts another brain cannot does not necessitate that there is anything more at work than physical processes, nor does asserting that everything which happens in our brains has a purely physical basis necessitate that a similar creature would have the same result from physical processes in their brains.

Furthermore, it may yet happen that chimpanzees eventually evolve into a species with self-awareness, or language, or art. They have tools now. Remember, there was a time in our own past when our direct ancestors did not share all the higher functions of our modern brains.

There has never been a time in the history of human civilization that we've discovered, where humans did not possess spirituality of some kind. Inspiration is directly associated with human spirit and spirituality... it's even in the word. You can try to explain it physically but the fact remains, humans are inspired and humans are also spiritually connected. That is not a coincidence.

More bold assertions with no evidence

Occam's Razor says simpler theories are preferable.

Occam's Razor as a defense of God?

hahahaha-ah-haha-hahahahahahaha