Area54

A careful reading of your posts inlcines me to accept the reality of extraterrestrial life, as you are certainly on another planet.

If God is EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE . namely the whole Universe from the Big Bang till now , from the middle of the stars , galaxies , black holes , dark matter , dark energy to every minute atom or sub atomic particle , then that is not " incomplete, ambiguous and insufficient".

That borders on the fatuous. The key word in that statement is "If" and my point is that the evidence to turn that "if" into an "is" is most certainly incomplete, ambigous and insufficient. Making confident pronouncements to the contrary, vigorously expressing opionions, referencing third and fourth hand anecdotes, simply does not cut it.

if all this "STUFF " does not belong to GOD , Who does it belong to ? Or Who or what is responsible for its origination ( it cannot just come out of Nothing , that is even more absurd than saying it has an Origination .

It need not belong to anyone. Why do you insist that such must be the case? Why do you demand that there be a creator? What makes you think I - or anyone - is claiming the it all came out of nothing. (Setting aside that "things" come out of nothing all the time. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ Do you deny their existence?)

The book describes people being grabbed from behind , from stepping out into the road , pulled backwards , away from ' the next moment ' a heavy Lorry swishing by. On turning around to thank the person saving their life ' there was nobody there ' many , many examples of this can be given .

Unsubstantiated anecdotes from the gullible are hardly the basis for a sound belief system. Do you understand what real evidence is? To date I see little evidence that you do and a great deal to the contrary. As the saying goes, we are all entitled to our own beliefs, but not our own facts.

I personally think we are very significant , in the whole ' scheme of things ' , both as receivers and givers , certainly as far as the earth is concerned . I think we are allocated to this domain , what happens else where , we may one day maybe find out and ' possibly take part in ' .

This has all the hallmarks of Christian indoctrination - man given dominion over the animals. It's anthropocentric claptrap. If it were true it's a pretty sorry mess we are making of it. I'd rather run with inow's view that we are animals. At least that way we can use the excuse of having been driven by instinct, committed to personal short-term survival and sufficiency.

Concerning your comment about Arthur C Clark and his stories and inferred predictions . Like Isaac Assimov , their predictive stories were very plausible , because they usually had a scientific yet imaginative link . Hense my comment about prediction . Many of Clarks Ideas are central to current science , though others are not ( so far ) . His reasoning on the Sea being the early origin of life forms seems to ring certain bells from many directions . And the great sea whale recently being given pride of place in the Natural History Museum , seems both , coincidental to my argument as well as redressing and all

Asimov had little or no predictive elements in his stories. In proposing the Three Laws of Robotics he highlighted a future problem and a possible solution. Other than that most of his "predictions" are plot devices. He was, above all, a superb story teller.

From Darwin onward, almost every investigator into the origin of life viewed the sea as the birthplace of life. His writings reflect that view. It is most certainly not a view original to him in any way. He was a great lover of the sea - I refer you to his book(s) on diving, called IIRC, The Reefs of Taprobane.

Man interacting with God ! , God interacting with man ! Angels interacting from time to time with individuals , Men wrestling with an Angel . Angels bringing ' Glad tidings' , men wrestling with great white sharks , or me gazing at my goldfish , counting them , feeding them , making sure their environment is refreshed and fine !

The fish - man interface is the only one supported by evidence and lots of it. Meanwhile, I think your own passionate belief system, based on an extrapolation of your personal experience with other lifeforms, does provide an interesting illustration of how early man's religious beliefs may have emerged. I thank you for that insight.

Apart from any initial investment in such a project, would there be significant maintenance costs?

You may recall that steel did not react well to heat in the twin towers. Form the appropriate conclusion.

More to the point the initial investment would be vast and never recouped. Try some back of the envelope calculations to satisfy yourself.

 

I think the logic is sound, however. It merely postulates that it was complex language which created humanity rather than intelligence.

That sounds perilously like a circular argument. Probably because it is.

 

Humans are capable of various modes of thinking.

 

I believe humans used to think in a consciousness expressed by the natural wiring of the brain while now our consciousness is an expression of language.

The first statement is demonstrably correct. Because that is the case the second statement is consequently false. Many people, perhaps all people, do some of their conscious thinking without the use of language. I believe there was a thread about this here a couple of months ago.

 

High quality man: Handsome, has a good career in a full-time job, smart and well-educated, financially rich, never been in any relationship with opposite sex before (undamaged virgin)

 

Low quality man: Ugly, has no full-time job, stupid and uneducated, financially poor, has had several relationships with opposite sex already (“emotionally damaged" from investing too much energy in the wrong people and “non-virgin")

 

High quality woman: Beautiful, has a good career in a full-time job, smart and well-educated, financially rich, never been in a relationship with opposite sex before (undamaged virgin)

 

Low quality woman: Ugly, has no full-time job, stupid and uneducated, financially poor, has had several relationships with opposite sex already (“emotionally damaged" from investing too much energy in the wrong people and “non-virgin")

There seems to be a lot of implicit judgement here. As a Christian Crusader you would be aware of the passage, I think in Mathew, 'Judge not lest ye be judged'.

................... HIERARCHY OF HUMAN LIFE ...................

 

1. Then the very top must be GOD ( which is by most people's definition ' the Almighty, Everywhere, Everything ,

....................Taking a bit of beating , to go any higher . )

The evidence for a GOD is incomplete, ambiguous and insufficient (hence the need for faith).

2. Angels ( including Arc angels )

The evidence for angels is practically non-existent, without abandoning all critical thinking.

3. Humans ( or Human like )

While I shall readily agree with you that humans exist you have still failed to offer anything other than opinion an anecdote to justify their alleged position above all other known life forms. Do you intend to continue to ignore this central weakness of your argument?

4. Fish ( and others)

 

See previous point.

.....THIS MEANS , we can interact with any of these four levels of the HIERARCHY

( al be it ) that some levels may be through inter mediators

No. If I concede, temporarily, that all these four levels exist it does not mean we can necessarily interact with them. You pulled that one out of a vacuum.

It's interesting that the British Museum , is just arranging the largest Known living entity in the world to be on display in the Museum

Namely a Massive , massive , whale ?

Several minor, technical points here.

Are you unsure about it being a whale? If not, why the question mark?

While technically the museum you refer to is (or was at one time) the British Museum of Natural History, it has been known for some time simply as the Natural History Muesum. The British Museum is located on the other side of town and has now whales, unless there are carvings of them in the Elgin Marbles.

The whale has long been on display in the museum. It was certainly there when I visited a few decades ago. The museum is simply relocating it to pride of place in the central hall.

And, less technically, so what? I don't catch how this is relevant to your argument.

It is no supprised then , that one of the greatest ever science fiction writers in the world (Arthur .C. Clark ) { great Wireless Scientist of the 1940'/50 s , renown for his forsight on future inventions in both mechanical, electrical , atomic and space science . renown Science Fiction Stories}

 

In his predictive SF Story 2001/10/ etc a Space Odessy .

He predicted mankind finding life on Europa ( the water and ice world one of Jupiters moons )

His prediction was of giant intelligent whales / fish inhabiting the seas of EUROPA . As well as Jupiter itself turning into a small local Sun . All-be-it a story , his insight has many times proved to be correct .

His story was not intended to be predictive. Nor were his thoughts on the possibility of life on Europa original. I just fail to see where you are trying to go with this.

So may be in a small way this enhances my suggestion of the Human interface Hierarchy suggested above .

I don't think so.

There's no such thing as "instinct".

 

More accurately "instinct" is nothing like we humans believe it is. Individuals of each species have a natural wiring that will tend to lead to them acting similarly in identical situations. It is this wiring which is the basis of their consciousness through which they act. Consciousness drives behavior where it applies. If a cat knows a specific dog just wants to play it will not run or attack when approached by it.

 

Humans can't see this because we are the odd man out. All other animals have their wiring at the root of their behavior and communication while we have modern language at the root of ours. Modern language is not tied to wiring because human knowledge became far too complex to support our natural language between 4,000 and 5,200 years ago. We had to adopt a new operating system and we lost touch with animals.

Can you confirm this is just an opinion and lacks any broad support in the relevant scientific communities?

I have a brain and occasionally I use it.

Just not on this occasion.

 

Think about it. You have absolutely nothing. Pure void. Absolute nothingness. How can something come from that? It just doesn't seem to make any sense.

This view requires an assumption that humans are smart enough to know what makes sense.There is very clear and abundant evidence that, in the past, the smartest minds have had decidedly faulty ideas and that today the common sense of the majority of humans is often wrong.

So, working on what "seems" to make sense doesn't appear to be a sound, or a logical, or a justifiable, or a defensible basis for a worldview.

I think it is obvious to ALL that man is at the top of the HIERARCHY, ON earth .

On the contrary. It is apparent to anyone who cares to think about it carefully that hierarchies, inasmuch as they exist, are relative and contigent upon perspective.

At the risk of being thought offensive, I believe, Mike, your views would benefit from paying more attention to the thoughts of others, rather than cherry picking their observations to support your (questionable) world view.

You feel bad his rights were violated ?

I don't think anyone has suggested that. Rather, the concern is that anyone's rights were violated. Justice is blind. If his rights were violated without redress yesterday, yours can be violated without redress tomorrow.

Koti, it is well understood in educational circles that people differ in their preferences for absorbing knowledge. Some require a strong visual component, others are strongly oriented towards words and so on. Your tendency to visualize is similar to my own approach, but I have met many people who do almost no visulization. I am surprised that, given your background in teaching, you were unaware of this. I believe it is a cornerstone of any form of teacher training.

Without putting numbers on it , I think it is possible to get a feel for this ' hierarchy ' business , sufficient to look downwards and upwards from the goldfish , and downward and upwards from humans .

 

But wouldn't that simply be the heirarchy as perceived by humans. It would surely be different from any heirarchy perceived by cougars, penguins, or rose bushes? And if that is the case, would it be of any particular value?

knowledge + imagination + good judgment = wisdom

 

Except that things physically popping into existence out of absolute nothingness seems absurd. It's pretty safe to say that something has always existed and simply didn't come from anywhere.

You seem to be expressing personal views that exist independently of reality. Just because you believe something to be absurd does not make it so.

What evidence do you have that is is "pretty safe to say that something has always existed"?

Do you not realise that Big Bang theory does not preclude something always having existed?

ABSOLUTELY WRONG

Absolutely is quite a large word. (Especially in your chosen font.) Do you have any evidence that in all the exams, on all the science courses, in every year, at every university, in every country, there is no frequent attention to problem solving in the examinations? If so, I would be interested in seeing the evidence. If not, I can treat it as an unvalidated opinion.

Explanation can only be absurd, whatever it be. Things don't appear by themselves.

How do you know, with certainty, that this is the case?

How do you know, with certainty, that it has always been the case?

Why do you think that the alternative explantion to your own belief requires that "things appeared by themselves"?

From where have appeared all these billions of billions of tones of matter of the Universe? In the big bang all these were compressed as energy, but they were already there. From where have phisically appeared? The answer can only be very absurd, in the case they have appeared alone and in the case they have not appeared alone, and will make a bit of fear...

The origin of the matter/energy that consitutes the universe remains unknown. Numerous possibilities have been proposed, with more or less support. Your position on the matter seems erroneous, inasmuch as you seem to favour only a single explanation. What is your justification for that?