Also, you talk about survival instincts and the innate drive to propagate the species that is programed in every living creature and I have to ask where does that come from?

These dumb "unconscious" unintelligent creatures, these animals, don't even think about death or dieing. Why should they care about passing on their genes? (Where does that come from if not from an infinite intelligence or spirit? Why on earth would they care about propagating their species or passing on their genes? ... and from where did they get their survival instincts? None of that makes any sense.

If you say it is just the result of a sexual drive, then I have to ask the purpose of that sexual drive. What is its purpose if not to propagate? If they don't 'think' about it, then where on earth did this arise from if not from some kind of spirit intelligence?


I know how some atheists think of people like me who believe in the intelligence of the living universe. They think we are idiots, foolish silly people who "need" or "want" to believe in something greater than ourselves. They feel so superior for having their logical belief in nothing but what they can see, touch and prove to themselves.

Well I think they are blind fools who can't see the forest for the trees. To say that there is no evidence of a designer is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. To ask for evidence is like a man drowning asking for a glass of water. It is absurd.

This entire line of reasoning hinges on the presupposition that these things are meaningless without eternal spirit or whatever.

That is the problem with your question.

I disagree. Just because there are things we do not understand in our baby knowledge of the universe, does not signify a design nor intelligent super beings or whatever.

We don't know it all and may never know it all.

the evidence suggests that survival instinct and the drive to propagate are genetically implanted. we really don't care about these things as you suggest. it's instinctive. we don't give our heartbeat a thought either but the brain keeps it beating because the brain needs oxygen to survive. it may not make any sense to you bean. doesn't make sense to many not familiar with biological and other scientific concepts. our spleen doesn't make sense to me but i'm not all that well educated on the human anatomy. there's much we don't know and much that makes no sense to anybody. that's why we continue to strive to learn.
.



well i'm no atheist, agnostic here, but what does atheism have to do with the science of the visible universe or evolutionary biology? atheism is all about the denial of gods. being atheist, agnostic, christian, muslim, buddhist or whatever is not a qualification in itself as an authority on a given science discipline. seems the reason for your confusion is that you argue science as a theist or spiritualist with atheists when neither you or they necessarily understand the concepts involved. not being well educated at all on evolutionary biology i can't refer you but if you want a well known and respected theoretical physicist's take on the universe and it's theoretical origins i'd suggest "a brief history in time" by stephen hawkings. it's well illustrated and written for us laypeople.

Personally, I don't have a problem that.

Meaning is necessarily subjective.

And in my view, "eternal spirit or whatever" is the "subject" in "subjective".

Your logic is right dead bang on, Jenny, your timing is off.

They predict that the universe will eventually "die" in a very long time. I saw the article that quoted scientists, but since it was written for the general public, it stated the time span in "a billion billion billion billion years" or something like that, instead of expressing it in terms of a power of ten.

So we're really at an early age of the universe, and the death is still far away into the future.

A few billions or tens of billions of years may seem like a long time to us, but everything has its due course to run.

As we say it in Hungarian, "The millstones of God grind slowly."

In the face of an infinite system tens of billions of 'years' is not a long time at all.

There are probably many universes and each one is following the other and propagating the next, and each one may have billions and billions of 'years' to exist... but like life and death on earth, life goes on and infinity is infinite.

Spirit is infinite and perhaps it begets many universes.

There are only two choices. To be or not to be. To exist or not to exist.

Nothing cannot EXIST.

INFINITY MUST PREVAIL.

That is the only logical conclusion.

My previous post was an answer to (1). Your logic is bang dead on, we WILL die out, but the timing was wrong, it was not due to happen billions of years ago.

(2) It makes no sense to relate lengths of any two things (time, distance, to prove our points) if one is finite, one is infinite.

Two finites can be compare and we can state which is longer.

A finite and an infinite, if we do compare them, we'll yield, with furhter logic, invalid results.

----------

Example of (2):

2.1 Infinity metres are longer than 3 metres.

2.2 Infinity metres are longer than 4 billion metres.


In both 2.1 and 2.2, the finite can be put into the infinite the same amount of time.

If you put two finites (F1, F2) into a third finite (F3), and you can put both F1 and F2 and equal number of times into F3, then F1= F2. Since 3 metres and 4 billion metres go into infinity metres an equal number of times, therefore 3 metres is the same as 4 billion metres.

Which is not true.

Therefore we must never express the length of a finite as a measure of the length of an infinite.

I mean, that it does not matter which finite you take, it will always be shorter the infinite.

Thefore we must stop ourselves from saying things such as "two billion years is short when put against infinity". The two are not measuring up to measurements of their length in the same measure.

----------

One corollary is "a thousand years is a mere blink of an eye for God who has been in existence since eternity." This is completely false. A thousands years is a blink of an eye when compared to a billion years. But not when compared to infinity.

To illustrate:

(eyeblink) : (human life) = (thousand years) : (billion years)

is true, but
(eyeblink) : (human life) cannot be equated to any length of time when that any length is compared to infinity. I.e.

(eyeblink) : (human life) = (X number of years) : (infinite number of years)

cannot be made to work as long as you try to substitute a finite number into X.

And you know that, how....??



Who says they do? They care about sex, it's clear that there's instnct there, but have these "unconscious" unintelligent creatures made the connection between sex and reproduction? Do they understand genetic inheritance, heredity, and the like? I certainly don't have any reason to believe so, particularly when it took a very very long time for us "advanced" humans to be fully aware of it.



Since "that" which you speak of entails a wholly speculative assumption, there's no real way to answer this question. I have yet to see any evidence of an "infinite intelligence or spirit," and I have yet to see any need for them either. In the absence of any compelling reason to believe in something so highly intangible, I choose not to believe in it.



To some of us, it makes perfect sense. Life has a tendency to see living as preferable to not living. That's the survival instinct. The link between Sex and reproduction is another matter entirely. It certainly doesn't seem to require the existence of some nebulous "spirit."



One need not necessarily necessitate the other.



Maybe some do, I don't know. All I know is I have yet to see any convincing reason to believe that "spirit" or an "intelligent universe" exists.



Sorry, but I still see no evidence of a designer, no more than I see the evidence of the invisible 900-foot-long vibrating mosquito that hovers 12 feet above me 24 hours a day.

We all have the right to believe as we choose, but when you refer to people as "blind fools" and "dumb" simply because they believe differently than you do, you're not helping your case much.

They don't buy health insurance.




Don't you ever watch the discovery channel? Does a male lion kill its own young so the females will go into heat so he can have sex with them? NO.

A single male lion will kill off lion cubs of another male lion's pride after he has defeated or run off the current male lion of that pride, so the females will go into heat and he can propagate his own young. The narrator always says it is because he wants to 'pass on his genes.' Well well I wonder how they know that? Or is it just for our benefit?




That they are NOT aware actually speaks more in favor of the existences of a higher intelligence or group mind that DOES KNOW and does make sure that sex occurs by design whether or not the dumb unconscious creature is aware enough to know any of that or not.



The evidence is in the actions and designs of the apparent 'dumb and unconscious unknowing' creatures who are doing things 'by design' and 'by instinct' that has the purpose of propagating and surviving... without their even being conscious or aware of that purpose.






When you say "LIFE" has a tendency to see living as preferable to not living, what do you mean by "life?"

Where does this 'survival instinct' arise from? Knowing that it exists and giving it a name does not explain it. Explain it without the existence of a higher mind or higher intelligence at work.




Then answer the question. From where does this sexual drive arise and for what purpose?



And you have yet to answer my questions and explain where instinct and survival instinct comes from, other than calling it "LIFE."



I don't call them 'blind fools' lightly or because they 'believe differently than I do.

I call them BLIND because they cannot see and FOOLS because they don't want to see nor do they even try to see the obvious evidence.

Just like the ant that stands in front of the giant toe of an elephant and exclaims "I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ELEPHANTS."

Sorry, I'm just being honest.

Again, you're blending two things here that may not bear any connection at all in the lion's mind. Yes, he wants to speed up the process so he can have sex with the lioness. No, this is not evidence that he has any comprehension of the link between sex and reproduction. Given the relatively lengthy time frame between conception and birth, particularly in the larger mammals, there is little reason to believe that they would make this connection.



For the same reason they give meerkats names, and for the same reason they talk about animal actions in humanistic terms.



OR -- that they are not aware of it might just mean that there is really nothing to BE aware of beyond base instinct. And therefore, nothing and no one to credit/blame for it. Sometimes there really IS no one behind the curtain.



Or you could be reading something into it that doesn't exist at all. That's my take on it, anyway.



Back to the Discovery Channel. The zebra never actually WANTS to be killed and eaten, it just happens that way sometimes because the lions are good enough at their jobs.

But the fact that a creature does what it is programmed to do, in no way implies a "designer," in the commonly accepted sense of the term. Millions of years of evolution have led us to this point, and evolution is the real "designer."

Now, if we're looking at it from the standpoint of intelligence, and something like 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct today, well, that's just plain wasteful....! If that's what you consider "intelligent," then, in the absence of some other as-yet-unrevealed agenda, I'll have to pass.



It is a built-in, hard-wired characteristic. Like hunger, or the need to rest, or the need to urinate. No higher intelligence required. Simple biological function.



It derives from instinct, and all it does is (ultimately) result in species continuity. When you say "purpose," this implies a "purposer," but I do not see any evidence of this. To say "purpose" begs the question "Whose purpose?" because "purpose" is a deliberate decision made by a thinking entity. I don't see that here.



Again -- simple biology. Nothing beyond that is required.

We know biology exists (insofar as we can "know" anything) -- but I mean that it is demonstrable in a laboratory setting. Your "spirit" and "intelligent universe" are not so demonstrable, and this is where I feel your argument fails.



I don't think the issue is WHY you call them that. I think the issue is the fact that you resort to that sort of terminology at all. It comes across as rude and intolerant.



Because it's obvious to you does not necessarily make it obvious to anyone else. It certainly isn't obvious to me at all. And it isn't that I don't want to see, it's that (so far, anyway) there's nothing to look at.



Comparing "spirit" and the "intelligent universe" to an elephant is specious, at best. We -- humans -- most likely perceive things differently than an ant does. But make the elephant invisible and remove all traces of any impact it might have had on the ant's world, and I may be forced to agree with the ant on that score.

You assume too much and accuse others of the same.

LexFonteyne,

Thank you for your responses, but they are non-answers. To explain it with the answer "it derives from instinct" does not answer the question where did the instinct arise from?

What makes you believe or assume that "base instinct" is natural? and automatic and needs no further study? How does it arise in a specific creature? Why would it evolve towards the desire or purpose to live and survive?

The only thing you could come up with is: Evolution. "Hard wired programing" etc.

Programming by what or who?

Evolution is to me is clear and obvious evidence of an intelligence designing and improving on itself. Evolution does not rule out intelligent design, it supports it.

That's the way I see it.





No, why would I do that? I am examining the EVIDENCE. I don't have an emotional agenda here, I am looking for the real answer and the real science behind existence and life itself. I am not creating a religion here.

You have avoided answering this question:

"When you say "LIFE" has a tendency to see living as preferable to not living, what do you mean by "life?"

What do you mean by the term "life?"

It doesn't mean there's an intellect or purpose behind it.

Look at it this way -- we'll take the extremes. Either life is pre-programmed to survive (and, in doing so, replicate) or it's not.

If it wasn't, there would be no life.

But there is life, so we can infer that there is pre-programming in place for this to occur.

That pre-programming does not have to come from a "spirit" or an "intelligent universe."

It could have come from aliens who devised the whole thing as an experiment. It could have developed naturally as a corollary to the evolutionary process.

Or it could be that it just happened that way because sometimes things just happen.

Whatever you want to believe, we'll probably never know one way or the other. I'm OK with that. If someone comes up with some actual evidence one way or the other, fine, I'm perfectly willing to listen. But your arguments are presented from the standpoint of "HERE is what happened, HERE is how it works, I'M right, everyone else is wrong and dumb and foolish because they don't believe the same thing I do."

But that's not proof, that's not even a rational argument. Petulance and intolerance prove nothing except that someone is petulant and intolerant. If you have something to offer other than your own belief, let's hear it. So far all I've seen are complaints about how everyone who believes differently from you is an idiot, and a lot of tangential side-stepping. If you have some cards, put them on the table.



I'll say it again: evolution. It's a process. It moves, some would even say it "advances" but I'm not quite ready to go that far. There is no "what" or "who" in the sense of a conscious programmer, as far as I can see. When leaves blow across the ground, "who" is doing that? It's the wind -- there's no conscious volition behind it.



If it was really an "intelligence," then why use such a slow and inefficient process? Have you read Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale"? It's a great book about how the evolutionary process works, and it helped me understand a number of things about evolution. And one of the things I learned was that evolution has resulted in all kinds of dead ends and doomed offshoots. This isn't my idea of "intelligence."



Only if you're predisposed to believing in things that have no evidence to support them. "Wishful thinking" is not evidence. Again, put your cards on the table.



Excuse me, but I have yet to see any evidence beyond your tendency to draw conclusions from -- well, from nowhere, as far as I can tell. What you've presented thus far falls well short of any definition of the word "evidence" I'm familiar with. Feelings, beliefs, hopes, interpretations, these are not evidence.



Then why do you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?



Your claims are basically stated in terms OF a religion -- faith in something for which there is no rational basis to believe.



I have answered this several times, but apparently you do not like my answer so you choose not to see it!

I use "life" in the general and commonly-understood sense of the term. That's all. Nothing complicated.

Life is, to me, a simple coincidence which occurred due to a number of conditions/events favorable for such life to develop. Had those conditions/events been otherwise, either life would not have developed at all, or some other form of life might have.

None of this requires an unseen intelligence.

************************************************

Pre-programing requires a programmer. There is no way around this fact. THAT IS SIMPLE LOGIC.

**************************************************



**********************************
Things don't "just happen." If indeed life on this planet came from 'aliens' then you have to ask the question who programed them and where did they come from and how did the evolve?

*************************************




**********************
I think we can and will know. ..And I am not "okay" with not knowing.
********************************




No it is not. And I have the evidence and you are NOT listening. I am simply asking people to consider the evidence but they just don't see it and they don't consider it to even be 'evidence.' I do. It is all we have. And it is glaringly obvious.

A 'dumb' and unconscious animal does things on instinct, designs things, evolves, adapts to survive... all the while not being aware of what it's purpose really is, why it does what it does etc.; all the while not thinking about death, reproduction, passing on its genes etc...

ALL ON THIS MYSTERIOUS THING YOU CALL INSTINCT.

That is the end of your explanation. That is what satisfies you. That is not an answer for me. That is a compromise or a settlement. You will stop there in your logical investigation because you don't know where else to go and you are "okay with that." That is your choice. It is not mine. I want more. I want it to actually make sense.

************************************



****************************************

I have cards but they are tarot cards.

I am NOT intolerant and I don't call people 'idiots.' I don't know where you get that impression. And I do have something to offer if people would drop their shields and listen.

If you could follow my logic you would follow it to the same place, but you have stopped at a place where you say your are "okay with that answer" simply because my "evidence" does not suit you or pass as hard evidence. You give all the credit to 'evolution' and 'instinct' but you do not have any idea how those processes actually occur or what drives them or how they work.

***************************************************



**************************

And you know this how? I agree, but it is part of the programing of cause and effect in this world.

****************************



***************************

Why such a slow process? Hey in the face of infinity, we have all the time in the world. What's the rush? I have not read the book. Of course there are going to be 'dead ends.' One learns by mistakes no by successes.
********************************


***********************************************


It is not 'wishful thinking.' I seek answers. Where you (and where 'scientists') stop and say "I'm okay with that answer and there is no need to go any further.."

It is the ones who 'go further' who actually discover new things, not the people who pick a pat answer and stop there and say they are "okay" with not knowing the rest.

I want to go further and I ask why and how. How did evolution occur and why? That is my question. Evolution is not the answer, it is another puzzle to solve.

*********************************************



**********************************************************


I do not draw conclusions from "nowhere" and I have no "religion."
It has nothing to do with 'hopes.'

I agree that my personal interpretation are not evidence. I did not say they were. I feel my basis for the ideas I explore are on sound ground. I am just trying to see if anyone can see what I see, and particularly the un-indoctrinated atheists mind set. I feel they are one or two steps ahead of the religious mind set, but they are headed to a truth that will take them a lot further.

**************************************************************







That does not answer the question in regards to your statement:

"LIFE" has a tendency to see living as preferable to not living."

Here you speak of "Life" as an entity that can "see" and that has a preference to living as apposed to not living.

I can replace the word "Life" with the word "God."

"God has a tendency to see living as preferable to not living."

Which is what I mean when I say there are only two choices. To be or not to be. To exist or not.

That is a choice that has to be made by a conscious entity.

Because humans are social animals and quite likely the most 'successful' genes are passed along by those who have strong empathy for their species.

Call it the 'Racial Memory' if you will, but I believe the very fact that we live(d) means we touch the lives of others even if we don't reproduce. I don't think it has anything to do with a higher power (in fact, sometimes the worship of a higher power can make some humans both anti-social and downright homicidal in defense of their beliefs).

Take the movie 'Blade Runner'-- even the seemingly soulless Roy saved the life of the man who was stalking him and told him:



Even though these words come from a work of fiction, don't they still resonate strongly in that place where memory and memes meet?

-Kerry O.

Sounds like self-confirming bias to me.

To change my mind you will have to inform me of the following.

Exactly what was your question for which you sought an answer?
How did you determine what "evidence" to examine? What was the evidence you examined?
And finally - How did you come to your ultimate conclusion, what comparisons, correlations, and testing did you make to support your conclusions?

There is more than one way to be blind but the most efficient way is to utilize an instinctual process, often refered to as the self-serving bias.

Here we go again... the "Which came first? The chicken or God?" question...

Why is a metal circular tube stronger then a metal square tube?

Why is metal stronger then most plastic?

Why is bread free at Golden Corale?

Why do strong structures last longer then weak structures?

Why . . .

Your answer is in these questions.