To be clear:

1. I am appealing to the atheist mindset because it is un-indoctrinated by religion. I feel that atheists are closer to the truth than those indoctrinated by religious ideology, even though they are not receptive to the idea of intelligent design.

2. The primary question to which I seek an answer relates to the idea that intelligent design is the driving force behind the manifesting universe and the evolving species here. I am not trying to prove it, I simply seek an answer beyond 'evolution" and "instinct."

3. The questions I asked in the O.P. were designed to lead into the fact that animals (and even humans) are somehow programed for survival and respond to that programming unconsciously -without conscious realization of purpose or intent.

The intent is survival and procreation... that has been made clear. But...

This leads to the ultimate puzzle. If they are not conscious of the purpose or intent... then who or what is the programmer or from where does this programming arise?

Where there is programming, there must be a programmer. That is the logic.

As for your other question:
I have not come to any conclusions.
The evidence is natures many designs and designers.

I don't know what you are getting at with your reference to a "self serving bias."

No. It's not.

So sure?

Well lets just say, for me, it is not an answer. You may have to shed a little light on your poetry for me to understand and interpret it.

That which survives does so becuase it is best suited to its environment.

Survival is just a way of saying something lasts.

Something lasts longer then something else becuase it is more suited to the pressures put upon it by its environment. Environment is just a fancy word for that which interacts with that which is being observed.

The purpose to sexual drive is to last longer then a not so sexual drive.

What I get from that is that the answer is that there is no source or purpose - there is only structure and interaction.

I would agree.

I knew there was a reason I liked you!



We don't have to agree, but I do enjoy when we understand 1another.

Bushi saidHuh???

Did you mean to say "Environment is just a fancy word for that which interacts with that which is observing"?

If not, I don't get it.

No. So if we observe a bird, and say this bird interacts with such and such . . . well that its environment.

The object is the bird, its environment is whatever interacts with it . . ., so . . .

Observing is not really an important factor . . . really . . .
(IMHO). Interaction is the important factor I wished to express. Observing just allows us to have knowledge of this interaction.

I know some would disagree. Epistemologically I would agree, otherwise I would disagree.

Many atheists are actually quite bitter about religion and are therefore extremely hardened-off to any ideas of spirituality because they equate spirituality with religion and ideas of dogma, oppression, ignorance, hypocristy, and bigotry.

This why they often use the "Santa Claus" analogy. They have convinced themselves (and rightfully so) that the most popular dogmatic religion genuinely represent utter stupidity and total ignorance.

So now they are living in fear that if they even consider an idea of spirituality they will be exposing themselves to utter foolishness and pathetically stupid brainwashing.

This is what the dogmatic religions have done for spirituality - unfortunately.



Evolution and Instinct are no answers to the questions I ask. Those concepts are extremely short-sighted and trival. I look way far beyond that.

The "cause" of evolution did not "begin" on Earth. The cause of evolution. The "cause" of evolution was built into the atoms long before the universe even cooled enough to form stars.

The potential for DNA came from the laws of the quantum field, long before DNA ever existence.

The "blueprint" for DNA was already 'encoded' in the structure of the Carbon atom, even before the carbon atoms even existed! Because their blueprint already existed in the quantum field even before the first carbon atoms ever came to exist in this universe.

So anyone who's looking at DNA or biological evolution on Earth as an 'explanation' is truly being extremely short-sighted because the "blueprint" for all that stuff existed in the quantum field even before the Big Bang ever took place.

So pointing to evolution and instinct as the 'answer' for anything is genuinely laughable. All of that had long since been predetermined. Not in precise detail, but certainly within it's abilty to unfold.



Well, that programming obviously was also in the original "blueprint" of the atoms, long before DNA ever came to be. It's "blueprint" is in the quantum field. We know this to be a fact today.



I agree. Whatever the DNA molecule is doing today it's because of the stucture of the atoms which make it up.

And that structure is not happenstance.

Stuff pops out of the quantum field "randomly".

But "random stuff" never pops out of the quantum field.

Only certain types of sub-atomic particles called, quarks, leptons, and bosons, ever come out of the quantum field.

Those sub-atomic "particles", wavicles, or vibrations, are always consistently the same. They are not anywhere near happenstance.

The programing of DNA is in the quantum foam.

There is no question about it. The quantum foam itself as 'chaotic' as it may seem, is not chaotic at all. It's extremely well-designed.

If DNA gives rise to creatures that have intent, reproduce, procreate, and can even produce brains to become consciously aware of themselves. It's no accident. It's was determined by the very well-designed structure of the quantum foam. The mysterious 'stuff' of the universe that defies all macro laws of physics, yet appears to have very strict laws of it's own.

Pointing at evolution and instinct as an 'answer' for riddle of life is truly laughable. Evolution and instinct ARE LIFE, they aren't the answer to the riddle!

The design of life was already a done deal long before the universe ever cooled enough for DNA to become manifest and start doing its thing.

The design for life existed in the stars long before planets even existed.

But that only speaks to a species, not to an individual creature.

So you seem to be implying that a species has a group mind and works together from this group mind to survive.

What determined the structure of the Quantum Foam?


So you are saying from the Quantum foam onward, its all natural flow of process. But Quantum Foam is the super intelligence, or the agency by which all is planned?

How is that different then any other apologist explanation?

No, that's simply mucking around with semantics.

But in order to get past this obtuseness, let's dump the term "pre-programmed" and call it "inherent pre-condition." Does a pre-condition require a conditioner?

The problem is, you think you already have the answer. Anyone who offers anything that contradicts your answer, or questions it, you automatically push aside without taking the time to listen to the other person's opinion. If your mind is made up, as it seems to be, then what's the point in even having this discussion? You simply attack what you can, ignore what you can't, insult people who disagree, and make no effort to further the discussion.




Things do "just happen." All the time. We call it "life."



And that, I think, may be what's behind this need you seem to have to dictate the laws of the universe. The problem is, as I've said before, is that just because you think you have the answers, that doesn't mean a.) you're right, or b.) that anyone else is obligated to accept them.



You haven't presented one shred of evidence to this point. Your entire line of reasoning seems to be "There can't be any other explanation." I don't buy it.



Again, you fall back on "purpose" -- which is convenient, because "purpose" needs "purposer." Again, mucking with semantics. I don't think animals have a "purpose," per se, because I don't believe there is anything/anyone qualified to determine what that "purpose" should be. And I hate to even use the word "should" because it also implies some sort of determiner.

For the record, I don't think humans have a purpose, either, other than that which they decide for themselves.



Not mysterious at all. Basic, inherent, ingrained. Like breathing or the ability to swim or to climb a tree. There's no mystery to it -- it's simple adaptation to environment, to existence.



Falling back on imaginary spirits or an intelligent universe is hardly a step in the right durection. You can borrow my invisible 900-foot-long vibrating mosquito if you like.



I've known people who were actually very good with those. I tend to be skeptical but I'm open to the idea that there may be more to them....!



But you do let people discuss these things with you (I'm giving you credit here because you're open to the debate process, even if I'm on the other side of it!) and you have never struck me as particularly intolerant until I saw the comments you made about their being dumb and foolish. That seemed a little over the top to me.



I have done tons of reading about evolution -- one of the themes of my books is that certain animals (within a sci-fi context) have evolved a particular ability, and I needed to know just how far-fetched it would actually be to have that happen (pretty damn far-fetched, as it turns out!), and none of the experts in the field (that I know of) have ever given any credence to this spirit/intelligent universe concept. There is simply nothing in the evolutionary literature with which I'm familiar that even references such an idea.

That doesn't make anybody right or wrong, but I have to defer to people like Dawkins and Sagan on this one.



Or it could be that evolution is largely driven by spontaneous, random mutations which occur due to various issues involving the nucleotide sequencing. Which could be caused by any number of factors, none of which require spirit/intelligent universe.



Well, I believe if we ARE ever to know the reality behind these things, it will come from real science and not quasi-religio-unitheistic speculation about things like "spirits" which have all the scientific validity of phrenology (and without the nifty cranial charts).



But it seems you believe you already have all the major pieces in place. And I'm not seeing the same thing you are.



As an atheist myself, though, I think I see what you're saying as being not all that much different from religion -- oh, there may not be a "good book" or a "messiah" or any of that, but you still seem (to me) to be putting your faith (maybe that's the wrong word, but that's how it looks from here) into something that exhibits no basis in fact.

Maybe your definition of "fact" is different than mine.



So then there was no God before there was life? (I could almost agree with this, in a slightly skewed way, inasmuch as I believe God did not, in fact, exist until man created him -- but that's a completely different angle.)

But I don't think the concepts are at all interchangeable.

To my way of thinking, the zebra being eaten by lions is not "God."



Then what are you saying? That because I don't believe God exists, I therefore don't believe life exists? Sorry, that won't hold up here. I see life every day (or what passes for life in the "real" world, anyway) -- I have yet to see anything of God in any way, shape, or form.

The question is:

"What determines the structure of the Quantum Foam? "

You people and your past and future references...

Yeah, understanding is always a good thing.

So it looks like I understand your view on the foundations of sexual drive.

Now I'm wary of making assumptions here because the whole idea (no source or purpose, only structure and interaction) is completely foreign to me because I never considered it an option.

So I'd like to understand how far "down" this idea goes. Is it fundamental to your whole view of "life, the universe, and everything"?

I'm reading Michio Kaku's "Parallel Worlds" now and he mentions the quantum foam in several places!

But can you shave with it...?

No, not at all. I was simply referring to the sentence structure you used and the way it cast the term "life" as an entity that could "see" and have a preference for living.

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

It was probably just a semantics slip of the tongue.

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

Its funny how when I make a point like "Programming requires a programmer" I am hit with the "semantics" argument. You said:



Obtuseness? I am simply attempting to translate your statements in the most accurate and literal manner possible.

Okay, I will visit your new term even though it is a totally different meaning.

"inherent pre-condition."

inherent: : involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic <risks inherent in the venture>

"pre-condition: necessary or required condition; prerequisite


Okay if we are talking about "survival instinct" as being an "inherent pre-condition" and not pre-programming, then you are just saying that this is the nature and character of the creature required for survival.

But this does not explain the process of HOW or WHY this nature or character or condition arises.

I am not 'okay' with that answer. I am a curious sort. Truly it is curiosity that drives me, not a need to believe in something that might not exist.

It is truth I seek not fantasy. But I am not willing to rule out an intelligent universe so easily when I do see a lot of evidence for it.

Ok, I think I get that. Observation then would be a function (or maybe "byproduct"?) of location? (As I said previously, this is a strange concept to me, so if I get it wrong, tell me how/where.)

I always think of environment as "that with which one interacts" so I think you can see how I would get confused by what you said.

You think I have a need to dictate the laws of the universe?? When did this become a personal evaluation?

I don't think I have the answers. I just think I have the best explanations for the most pressing questions in my own mind, and I am looking for someone to show me that they have something better. So far I have not found that. I dig and dig and challenge you and all you want to do is tell me I am wrong or arrogant or out of my mind or rude or insulting. You don't have anything better to offer than that or any better answers.

I certainly don't expect or care if anyone 'accepts' my world view. I am totally selfish in that respect. My world view is for me only, not for anyone else. I'm not writing a book or starting a religion or anything like that.

Well, whatever determine it must have been pretty clever to have designed it to unfold in such a way as to become a universe full of conscious beings.



Well, I'm forced to "stop" at the quantum foam because that's the limit of our capabilities to know. I'm not necessarily saying that the quantum foam itself is this "super intelligence", perhaps the quantum foam is merely the "Display matrix" on the computer screen of this "super intelligence". All I know is that all the information required to construct this universe and make it unfold the way it does is already contained within the quantum field. That's obvious from what we already know about it.



Because it's science. We've seen it in the labs. We've observed and recorded it's behavior right up to actually showing why we can only ever know certain things about it.

So it's not just an apologist's argument. It's an observable measurable fact. You can go into a lab and do experiments on it (assuming you have enough funding! )