Funkstar tentative hypothesis and vague ideas are not empirical evidence (empirical) science operate sout of sense perception - how is it possible to see what you are seeing with? Its not my idea - god gives his own idea of himself in scriptures - as for the why - it wasn't so much an argument to establish that god exists - god is established only after all atheistic arguments are exhausted why is it not good reason to perceive that the universe is directed by intelligence? Is there anything in our experience of known phenomena of complex material constructuions that do not owe their existence to intelligence - like for instance if you cannot help but look at a plastic model of th e universe and wonder who manufactured it, how is it that you can observe the actual universe and not wonder who manufactured that? every gap? - on the contrary science seems to labour under the epitah "the more you know the more you don't know" - for instance in darwins time it was thought that cells were just globs of matter and quite easily replicatable once the foundations of atomic structure could be dilineated - however closer examination of the cell reveals an infrastructure more complex than the electricity supply net work of NYC - more gaps just seem to keep on popping up
This really is bordering on the childish. We've been over this. I point out a tree as an example of complex material structure without guiding intelligence and you counter with the circular statement that that somehow proves your point. Enough already.
This is the nature of any investigation that delves deeper into the structure of the universe. You seem to think this means that the more we learn, the more ignorant we become. All it really means is that we are uncovering more and more detail that, so far, shows no signs of divine intervention.
actually even trees are caused by other trees - and of course trees have consciousness ( at least there is a distinction between dead trees and living trees in nurseries)
You said a tree is an example of something that "just happens" I explained how trees are only seen to "happen" from other trees - and even then very specifically, like an apple tree doesn't produce banyan trees. Also it is seen that only living trees have this capacity. not sure where the ad hom comes in here
== purpose The real question about the universe is why does it exist or what is our relationship with it
I was noting my own ad hom applied to you. Anyway, all life arose from inorganic processes 3.5+ billion years ago. And stating that dead trees don't make new trees is as informative as stating that rocks don't have nervous systems.
Sounds good to me. And you think that by consulting and studying self-generated fantasies you will come to this knowledge? Hmm... If I remember my history, that kind of thinking gave us a flat earth, crystal spheres, an earth centered universe, demons as the cause of disease, and some god or other as the cause of weather and earthquakes. Good luck with your god paradigm.
superluminal Thats whatthey say - and they've been trying to prove it since darwin's era, about 150 years - they've recalculated the chronology a few times but still are yet to exhibit empirical evidence of a living entity emerging from the reconstruction of inanimate matter - sounds like a theory to me I know - kind of makes me wonder why you brought up the tree as an example for your analogy
superluminal First you have to establish how they are self generated - at the very least I didn't generate them and neither did you Admittedly the bible functions more as a treatise of understanding how to approach god - but not all scriptures are harassed by relentless doctoring - like for instance there are descriptions of the calculation of time from the atom (older than the greeks - 5000bc) and the stages of a foetuses development in the womb within the vedas .... as for th eother things .....you think you have a better idea how to run the universe? At least the universe disagrees ....
Now this is the way you should question your hypothesis of god LG Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think I have been clear from the outset that empirical evidence is not sufficient to determine the nature of god because it is not even suffcient to determine our own conscious sense of self
then perhaps you can pen your additions to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness and benefit the scientific community
We can no more describe how and why the brain regulates the pulse than we can conciousness, but it's as obvious as can be that without a brain, you have no pulse, and without a brain, you have no conciousness. The idea of conciousness surviving death is as laughable as the pulse surviving death.
Interestingly, the autonomic nervous system is very well understood. But I agree. I asked LG why physical brain injury can damage or eliminate the sense of self we all have (a documented fact), and there was no compelling answer forthcoming. Which I already knew.
Does it really? Or does the ability of the person to communicate his "self" get altered? After all, what we present and what we perceive are limited by our abilities to communicate. And changes in "self" are limited by a definition of self too. So are you talking about self or do you mean personality or memory? After all most of our own perceptions of ourselves are derived from others. And 90% of what constitutes our "self" is unconscious.