Moving beyond Dawkins etc.

[edwest2]

There is rarely a KO punch, as you call it in science. You could say that it exists with evolution and natural selection, gravity, and a few other theories. It’s quite presumptuous to assume what I would have anyone believe, nearly as much as presuming what Professor Dawkins would “run with”.

The bottom line with religion and mythology is that it goes back way before Christianity. The first proof is in the cave drawings which substantially predate the Christians. Catholicism is interesting for its history and it’s richness, but it is only one more religion. As a 100 billion dollars per year organization, along with the spiritual and cultural role it fills, it is fun to understand it better. But it should not be confused with being anything more than it is, nor anything less.

The question this thread poses is what is the next step? Will the Church become relevant again, or will it continue to lose relevance, influence, and revenue? Is there an evolving atheism which also fills a spiritual need? Is religious sentiment as scientists like Einstein, Dawkins, and Hawking describe the ascendant spirituality?

This is a fair question given the historic and anthropological evidence, and the last 100 years of social and scientific progress. A religious system cannot plant it’s feet in the mud (or its head) and hope to survive in this world with its accelerating rate of change and knowledge growth.

The Church has been preaching the Gospel for better than 2,000 years. The only thing that separates us from those living 100 years ago is a power blackout. One happened here in Michigan: no TV, no cell phones, no internet, and eventually, no water.

I respectfully offer the following paraphrasing/quote: “It was once thought that that if you put 1,000 monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters that they would produce some [great piece of writing]. Now, thanks to the internet, we know that’s not true.”

When I worked in a hospital, I once transported a man to the X-Ray Department. I looked down at his requisition form and was surprised to see: “Age: 100.” I would have believed he was about about 50. I said, “Pardon me, sir. But how would you compare the way things were when you were in your 20’s to the way things are today?” He replied: “I’d say it’s about the same but everything happens a lot faster.”

A few years back, on TV, a commentator noted that the washing machines in use today are fundamentally no different from those your parents used in the 1950s. Another TV program about airport flight control noted that some airports were still using tubes dating back to 1957 or so, in their radar.

When the first transatlantic cable was completed, allowing communication by telegraph, and then, by telephone, it was heralded as a means to aid world peace as people in the United States and other countries would better come to understand each other. This was followed by both World Wars.

As someone who watches the media and the knowledge industry almost daily, I would ask that you look at the current rate of illiteracy, the change from in-depth reporting to a type of news now referred to as “info-tainment.” Less, not more, is being done to encourage an interest in scientific pursuits among the young.

The Catholic Church has survived much worse and will continue on. I base this on various statements by those speaking for the Church in a position to do so with full knowledge. The Church has welcomed adult stem cell research research and has even become involved in funding it. However, a sense of right and wrong is still required for any society to function and to protect life and liberty.

Peace,
Ed

 

[John21652]

John, it is not anti catholic to point out that Christianity is a religion, just as Hinduism and Islam are religions.

You mean you needed to tell everyone the obvious? And you think it makes you look wise? Ha, too funny.
However, Mudgely, you are being less than honest here, because you are doing more than simply saying Catholicism is a religion. You are desperately trying to paint the Catholic Church as an irrelevant, declining, money hungry institution. In the process you avoid answering directly the points that contradict you.

Catholicism is a Christian variant as Sunni is an Islamic variant. No more and no less. Your failure understand that is why you need to perform all these silly mental gymnastics. That is actually the hoot.

If you had any sense of history at all, you’d know that Catholicism is the original form of Christianity. You know, Apostolic succession and all that.

Your confusion of religious law with “natural law” is a good example of this shortcoming in your rhetoric. If you follow the evolution of the idea from Aristotle through Locke then you will see what I mean. Locke would assert logically that the primal position of the Pope is excluded by natural law. Obviously this is incompatible with Catholicism.

Well, again, you are a hoot. I never mentioned Natural Law! However, I will address your point. Locke wrote against the devine right of kings. Since Popes are elected, he wouldn’t state the opinion you think he would. Furthermore, Locke was a great Natural Law theorist and the Catholic Church is predicated upon Natural Law Moral Philosophy, so your argument is blatantly self contradictory.
Your argument is also hypocritical. In post #36 you accused Prodigalson of being “presumptuous” regarding what "Professor Dawkins would “run with”.". Yet here you presume to tell us what John Locke would exactly assert. It seems you operate with a set of double standards.

But please stop trying to hijack the thread.

Considering how I’ve been posting since page one, I hardly think I’ve been ‘hijacking’ the thread. Why don’t you state your real complaint, which is you don’t like it when someone shows up the falshoods and flaws in your anti-Catholic posts? You have been refuted everytime you try to paint the Church as a “…dying institution…”, as you did in post $6. You were given figures by me in post #7 and given more stats by Prodigalson in post #8 that proved you just make things up. For example, In post #6 you pointed out that the Church has “….$97 billion in revenue…”. In post #36 you added a few more billion. In post #6 you labelled the Church as “.…an out of date multi billion dollar religion profit center which most people can’t relate with.” The figures prove you wrong and the fact that the Church spends multi-millions of dollars on aid in 144 different countries makes your claim false and you look silly.

 

[rom422]

A number of claims are made here which appear to be only assertions, or do you have any evidence for your description of the nature of the soul?

I described the soul as spiritual because it performs operations that are non-material. I presented evidences for this. One evidence is that the ideas produced by the mind are universal and free from the limitations of material images. My idea of a circle, for example, is not restricted to this circle or that circle. It is not limited to this big circle or to that small circle. In other words, I have an understanding of what makes a circle a circle, regardless of its color, size, or location. Another evidence is that the mind is capable of self-reflection or consciousness, which is not found in any physical machine.

Your theories on machine self awareness, pattern recognition, and other computional topics seems ill informed and outdated to me. The field is advancing very rapidly. There are respected computer scientists who believed that the mental capacities which you ascribe to being related to having a soul will be exceeded by computers within a few decades. These predictions have historically underestimated progress when viewed in retrospect. Nobody can predict where it will go, except to say that it will probably be beyond what anyone can imagine today. Few people could have predicted even a the capabilities of something like an iPhone 4s withi Siri in the 80’s. Toffler might have come the closest.

The idea that machines can be invented that possess self-awareness or consciousness is pure speculation, not fact. The idea that machines can “think” the way people do, is outdated and has been abandoned by many reputable scientists. The truth is, computers do its “thinking” mechanically and without understanding. There was one time, for example, when I asked my spelling checker in the computer to check my Word document. Here is what I wrote: “You got that for only $10.00? That was a good boy!” I meant to say, “That was a good buy!” But you know what? The computer failed to detect the wrong spelling. Do you know why? Because the way the computer is checking the spelling is by mindlessly comparing each word in my document with its built-in dictionary. Since the word “boy” is a valid word in the dictionary, it failed to detect the wrong spelling. It is simply doing its work mechanically and without understanding.

Doubtless, computers and machines are valuable tools. They can process data with amazing speed. They can play chess. They can do a lot of routine human functions. Like Siri, they can even be made to speak words that they were programmed to speak. But there is NO EVIDENCE that computers understand what they are doing. They are nowhere close to being able to match people’s ability to understand data, even when the data are not perfect. For example, almost everybody can understand this: “Did u get my massage even wen da speling is rong?” Give that message to a computer and it will be lost.

 

[catholicgamer]

The bottom line with religion and mythology is that it goes back way before Christianity. The first proof is in the cave drawings which substantially predate the Christians. Catholicism is interesting for its history and it’s richness, but it is only one more religion. As a 100 billion dollars per year organization, along with the spiritual and cultural role it fills, it is fun to understand it better. But it should not be confused with being anything more than it is, nor anything less.

What exactly is this an argument for?

Will the Church become relevant again,

…this assumes that is was irrelevant at some point in time.

or will it continue to lose relevance, influence, and revenue?

Again, this assumes that it is losing relevance, influence and revenue…and also assumes that these things objectively matter.

As I stated to one friend before, Catholicism survived the Roman Empire…it can survive Dawkins et al.

Is there an evolving atheism which also fills a spiritual need?

Ummm…you do realize what the term “atheism” means…right?

Is religious sentiment as scientists like Einstein, Dawkins, and Hawking describe the ascendant spirituality?

Wait…what?

This is a fair question given the historic and anthropological evidence, and the last 100 years of social and scientific progress. A religious system cannot plant it’s feet in the mud (or its head) and hope to survive in this world with its accelerating rate of change and knowledge growth.

This…sigh…again smacks of the assumption that science and the Catholic faith are mutually exclusive. Pick one…or the other. I would love to hear the full argument instead of a summary assertion. Simply yelling out “science!!!” does not default the Catholic faith into “survival” mode. A trump card…you have not.

 

[Mudgely]

I’m not presuming anything about what you would have people believe:

Your words. Stated as fact. Where does my presumption enter into it?

As for Dr. Dawkins, why do you think he subjected himself to the experiment? Again, there is no presumption here. If memory serves me, I’m pretty sure he stated in the God Delusion, wherein he discussed his involvement, that he went in hopes of finding it to be legit, as it would be a tremendous support for his case. At least he was honest enough to admit it didn’t work.

GASP I had no idea! Do you think Christians are that ignorant? Really? Let’s see… for starters, Judaism is a heck of a lot older than Christianity, and every single Christian in the world must by the very nature of being Christian be familiar with it. And of course, Gilgamesh, the Rigveda, so on and so on. Doesn’t mean anything. Science and reason go way back before the theory of evolution. I’m sure you would laugh if I claimed that that fact was a knock-out argument against evolution. So, what’s your point?

Oh, great arbiter of wisdom and unsubstantiated truths, please tell us. What IS the Church?
I’d really like to see your sources for the Church’s 100,000,000,000 dollar a year income, but I’m sure you don’t have one.

In the view of faithful Catholics, the Church has never and will never cease being relevant. Whether the world thinks it is or not is of no consequence. As someone pointed out, Church membership is growing. Plus, if you really knew much about Catholicism, you would know that Jesus warned us that the world would always be against us.

Secondly, Atheism cannot fulfill a spiritual need because it denies the spiritual realm. Now you’re just being silly.

And your last question isn’t even a complete sentence. If you’re going to try and argue, at least do so coherently.

Truth never changes, friend. And to leave you with the words of one of my favorite people in the world:

“Truth is not determined by a majority vote.” - Pope Benedict XVI

Interesting that your are sure that I don’t have an income. I think that says enough about your presumtiveness, or codependency, or whatever it is. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know what your problems are.

 

[Mudgely]

I described the soul as spiritual because it performs operations that are non-material. I presented evidences for this. One evidence is that the ideas produced by the mind are universal and free from the limitations of material images. My idea of a circle, for example, is not restricted to this circle or that circle. It is not limited to this big circle or to that small circle. In other words, I have an understanding of what makes a circle a circle, regardless of its color, size, or location. Another evidence is that the mind is capable of self-reflection or consciousness, which is not found in any physical machine.

The idea that machines can be invented that possess self-awareness or consciousness is pure speculation, not fact. The idea that machines can “think” the way people do, is outdated and has been abandoned by many reputable scientists. The truth is, computers do its “thinking” mechanically and without understanding. There was one time, for example, when I asked my spelling checker in the computer to check my Word document. Here is what I wrote: “You got that for only $10.00? That was a good boy!” I meant to say, “That was a good buy!” But you know what? The computer failed to detect the wrong spelling. Do you know why? Because the way the computer is checking the spelling is by mindlessly comparing each word in my document with its built-in dictionary. Since the word “boy” is a valid word in the dictionary, it failed to detect the wrong spelling. It is simply doing its work mechanically and without understanding.

Doubtless, computers and machines are valuable tools. They can process data with amazing speed. They can play chess. They can do a lot of routine human functions. Like Siri, they can even be made to speak words that they were programmed to speak. But there is NO EVIDENCE that computers understand what they are doing. They are nowhere close to being able to match people’s ability to understand data, even when the data are not perfect. For example, almost everybody can understand this: “Did u get my massage even wen da speling is rong?” Give that message to a computer and it will be lost.

We disagree. Stay tuned for the future. My opinion is that you are looking backwards rather then forward. But neither of us knows until we get there.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Interesting that your are sure that I don’t have an income. I think that says enough about your presumtiveness, or codependency, or whatever it is. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know what your problems are.

Easy, friend. I never said anything about your income. I said you don’t have any reliable source for your claim about the Church’s 100,000,000,000 dollar profit. Please read more carefully.

I would never presume anything about your personal life. I may be a tad sarcastic, but I’m not that despicable.

Also, it’s hilariously hypocritical to say you don’t pretend to know my problems immediately after you accuse me of being codependent, which is mind boggling in itself. Do you understand what codependency is?

What’s really interesting is that you don’t offer a single counterpoint to any of mine.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Easy, friend. I never said anything about your income. I said you don’t have any reliable source for your claim about the Church’s 100,000,000,000 dollar profit. Please read more carefully.

Yes, that was quite a strange misreading. If atheists really think they are so rational, they should do better in leading by example. Reading your opponent’s thoughts carefully is an essential part of this.

 

[damian_clarke]

A number of claims are made here which appear to be only assertions, or do you have any evidence for your description of the nature of the soul?

Your theories on machine self awareness, pattern recognition, and other computional topics seems ill informed and outdated to me. The field is advancing very rapidly. There are respected computer scientists who believed that the mental capacities which you ascribe to being related to having a soul will be exceeded by computers within a few decades. These predictions have historically underestimated progress when viewed in retrospect. Nobody can predict where it will go, except to say that it will probably be beyond what anyone can imagine today. Few people could have predicted even a the capabilities of something like an iPhone 4s withi Siri in the 80’s. Toffler might have come the closest.

An i phone 4 has a soul now?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

When I first read this the first thing that came to mind was Christmas and the customs that were previously practices of other religions and ceremonies to other gods that were all swept to December 25th. Then I started to watch the video and saw the presenter already covers this.

ThinkingSapien, you do realize that that theory was based on Victorian-era anthropology and anti-Catholic Puritan polemics, right? Not many unbiased modern historians or archaeologists who specialize in ancient Rome, or who have access to primary historical sources, would give that theory much credence.

One of the weaknesses of modern New Atheist adherents is a lack of knowledge or understanding of history, and a tendency to rely on Internet-based historical theories, and popularizations of old theories, that are unsupportable in the light of modern scholarship.

 

[Mudgely]

An i phone 4 has a soul now?

Only the 4s model. That is what the “s” is for.

My point was that ascribing personality attributes to something speculated to exist which is called a “soul”, and then proceeding from that speculation to declaring that a machine will never possess similar attributes by virtue of not having this thing which is posited only by speculation is specious.

There were many claims made about the attributes of one’s soul and how these are manifested by such cognitive processes as self awareness which could not exist unless we imagine that a soul exists.

The current state of computer science would predict that statement likely to be false, though we are not there with machines yet. However the idea of that sort of cognitive pattern is not considered far fetched at all. Then the question becomes, will machines advance beyond is in areas of cognitive ability. If self awareness is a prerequisite to spirituality, then what else will a machine require to become a spiritual being?

If machines reach this point in thinking patterns, then they will do it much faster than people can. They can also communicate at much higher bandwidth, and also network simultaneously in large numbers. The implications are intriguing, at least.

People like Kurzweil have speculated on the possibility of spiritual machines for some time now. Certainly that speculation is more probable to be accurate than the speculation about the human soul which has intrigued us for centuries.

If it does turn out that machines can achieve some form of unique spirituality, first modeled on how we program them, and then evolving into their own religion, what will that imply?

I have more questions than answers about this stuff. This diverse world is filled with those who look forward and those who look backward. I don’t pretend to know the future. But I do think that the future of the Church is more likely to be successful if it starts looking forward a bit more, and I wonder how it can continue in its current state, as I understand it.

Unlike a practicing Catholic, I don’t see any reason to say that the Catholic Church has any particular legitimacy supersedes any other religious tradition. With the diversity of religious practices through the ages, the odds of that being the case are truly slim. The anthropological and other evidence would suggest that all religions are of human origin.

Even the reviled atheists will admit to a certain religiosity, or spirituality, for example when experiencing the wonder of scientific discovery, or the grandeur of natural splendor. One question that I pose is, what is this spiritual thing in man? Is this what is referred to as the soul in this forum? Is it just one more series of circuits in our brains which enhance our reproduction and survival skills? Why is the drive stronger in some people than in others? If it is a universal trait, and there is one true answer to this calling, then why are so many different answers found by so many people?

Those are the questions posed here.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien, you do realize that that theory was based on Victorian-era anthropology and anti-Catholic Puritan polemics, right?

I know in general the Puritans were pretty much against any practice that they saw as not supported by their interpretation of the bible; some religious, some non-religious. Though I am more familiar with their influence in colonial USA.

One of the weaknesses of modern New Atheist adherents is a lack of knowledge or understanding of history, and a tendency to rely on Internet-based historical theories…]

The existence of the Internet wasn’t something that was commonly known when I cam across the information. It sounds like you may be telling me that customs such as burning the Yule log have either secular or Christian origins as opposed to origins in non-Christian religions. If so would you mind sharing that information?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Only the 4s model. That is what the “s” is for.

My point was that ascribing personality attributes to something speculated to exist which is called a “soul”, and then proceeding from that speculation to declaring that a machine will never possess similar attributes by virtue of not having this thing which is posited only by speculation is specious.

There were many claims made about the attributes of one’s soul and how these are manifested by such cognitive processes as self awareness which could not exist unless we imagine that a soul exists.

The current state of computer science would predict that statement likely to be false, though we are not there with machines yet. However the idea of that sort of cognitive pattern is not considered far fetched at all. Then the question becomes, will machines advance beyond is in areas of cognitive ability. If self awareness is a prerequisite to spirituality, then what else will a machine require to become a spiritual being?

If machines reach this point in thinking patterns, then they will do it much faster than people can. They can also communicate at much higher bandwidth, and also network simultaneously in large numbers. The implications are intriguing, at least.

Let’s start with what a machine would need to be a spiritual being… Hmmm… How about… LIFE???

Regardless of how complicated the analytical processes a machine can run, I think there are a few things we can very safely say they will never be able to do: love, laugh, suffer. To approach anything resembling spirituality, a computer would have to be as intricate and complex as the human body and brain, and there is NO machine even remotely approaching that level, nor is there any indication that there ever will be. A machine is dependent on programs. You cannot give it sight, nerve endings, or any of the unfathomably complex sensory abilities we have, and you cannot give it emotions. The best science can do is create a program to poorly mimic true human experience. Any speculation to the contrary is, at this time, BEYOND SPECIOUS.

People like Kurzweil have speculated on the possibility of spiritual machines for some time now. Certainly that speculation is more probable to be accurate than the speculation about the human soul which has intrigued us for centuries.

If it does turn out that machines can achieve some form of unique spirituality, first modeled on how we program them, and then evolving into their own religion, what will that imply?

All of your wild speculation implies to me that you are more concerned with reducing man to a machine than anything else, especially honest scientific discussion. None off these"possibilities" are within sight of scientific progress, even viewed through a Hubble telescope. Your scientific dishonesty has been on brilliant display throughout this thread.

 

[rom422]

My point was that ascribing personality attributes to something speculated to exist which is called a “soul”, and then proceeding from that speculation to declaring that a machine will never possess similar attributes by virtue of not having this thing which is posited only by speculation is specious.

If you can’t grant that a spiritual soul exists in man, then how can you expect that a spiritual soul can exist in a machine?

There were many claims made about the attributes of one’s soul and how these are manifested by such cognitive processes as self awareness which could not exist unless we imagine that a soul exists.

The current state of computer science would predict that statement likely to be false, though we are not there with machines yet. However the idea of that sort of cognitive pattern is not considered far fetched at all. Then the question becomes, will machines advance beyond is in areas of cognitive ability. If self awareness is a prerequisite to spirituality, then what else will a machine require to become a spiritual being?

Besides the ability to be self-conscious, a machine must be able to understand non-material things like “being”, “existence”, “essence”, “understanding”, etc. This is what computers and so-called “thinking machines” lack. They have no understanding. They do not understand things, and they do not understand the meaning of meaning.

If machines reach this point in thinking patterns, then they will do it much faster than people can. They can also communicate at much higher bandwidth, and also network simultaneously in large numbers. The implications are intriguing, at least.

People like Kurzweil have speculated on the possibility of spiritual machines for some time now. Certainly that speculation is more probable to be accurate than the speculation about the human soul which has intrigued us for centuries.

If it does turn out that machines can achieve some form of unique spirituality, first modeled on how we program them, and then evolving into their own religion, what will that imply?

I have more questions than answers about this stuff. This diverse world is filled with those who look forward and those who look backward. I don’t pretend to know the future. But I do think that the future of the Church is more likely to be successful if it starts looking forward a bit more, and I wonder how it can continue in its current state, as I understand it.

It is not that you are looking forward and I am looking backward. The truth is, you are engaged in wishful thinking, but I am not. You are looking at science-fiction, while I am looking at non-fiction. You are making predictions based on a dream, while I am happy to have my thinking based on reality. I think that you should try to understand why machines, no matter how sophisticated, can’t do what even a child can do. Computers today can only simulate human thinking because they are designed to respond to various (name removed by moderator)uts and conditions. But their thought processes are fixed and limited to a programmer’s instruction, such as “If X = 0, do this; if X = 1, do that.” The machine hasn’t got any clue why it must do this if X = 0, and why it must do that, if X = 1. It doesn’t know the why because it is incapable of understanding anything beyond the instruction or the programmer’s code. On the contrary, a human being is not merely capable of understanding why this must be done if X = 0. He can also refuse to do it, if he wants to. This is because he has a living spiritual soul. A human being does not merely have an understanding of why the rule exists. He also has the capability to choose whether to follow the rule or not. Freedom of choice comes along with intelligence. Intelligence and freedom are found only in living souls, not in machines.

Unlike a practicing Catholic, I don’t see any reason to say that the Catholic Church has any particular legitimacy supersedes any other religious tradition. With the diversity of religious practices through the ages, the odds of that being the case are truly slim. The anthropological and other evidence would suggest that all religions are of human origin.

The evidence shows that Christianity is not of human origin. If it is of purely human origin, then it will not promulgate rules that are so difficult. Why would man make a religion where chastity is considered a virtue when it is so difficult to practice? Why would it teach honesty when you can get richer more quickly by cheating or theft? The existence of religion, with the Ten Commandments that are so difficult to follow, proves that a human being did not invent that religion and those rules.

 

[damian_clarke]

Only the 4s model. That is what the “s” is for.

Maybe it stands for a sense of humor then.

 

[Mudgely]

Let’s start with what a machine would need to be a spiritual being… Hmmm… How about… LIFE???

Regardless of how complicated the analytical processes a machine can run, I think there are a few things we can very safely say they will never be able to do: love, laugh, suffer. To approach anything resembling spirituality, a computer would have to be as intricate and complex as the human body and brain, and there is NO machine even remotely approaching that level, nor is there any indication that there ever will be. A machine is dependent on programs. You cannot give it sight, nerve endings, or any of the unfathomably complex sensory abilities we have, and you cannot give it emotions. The best science can do is create a program to poorly mimic true human experience. Any speculation to the contrary is, at this time, BEYOND SPECIOUS.

All of your wild speculation implies to me that you are more concerned with reducing man to a machine than anything else, especially honest scientific discussion. None off these"possibilities" are within sight of scientific progress, even viewed through a Hubble telescope. Your scientific dishonesty has been on brilliant display throughout this thread.

I disagree with you, and I am not interested in reducing anything. In fact, the entire concept of what life is, is not entirely clear to those who specialize in thinking and writing about it. I would say that you are trying to keep your thinking in such matters rather narrow.

I can provide you with links if you are interested in the topic of defining what life is. But there are sources easily found. For anyone interested, there is a talk on this topic on Ted.com.

 

[Mudgely]

If you can’t grant that a spiritual soul exists in man, then how can you expect that a spiritual soul can exist in a machine?

Besides the ability to be self-conscious, a machine must be able to understand non-material things like “being”, “existence”, “essence”, “understanding”, etc. This is what computers and so-called “thinking machines” lack. They have no understanding. They do not understand things, and they do not understand the meaning of meaning.

It is not that you are looking forward and I am looking backward. The truth is, you are engaged in wishful thinking, but I am not. You are looking at science-fiction, while I am looking at non-fiction. You are making predictions based on a dream, while I am happy to have my thinking based on reality. I think that you should try to understand why machines, no matter how sophisticated, can’t do what even a child can do. Computers today can only simulate human thinking because they are designed to respond to various (name removed by moderator)uts and conditions. But their thought processes are fixed and limited to a programmer’s instruction, such as “If X = 0, do this; if X = 1, do that.” The machine hasn’t got any clue why it must do this if X = 0, and why it must do that, if X = 1. It doesn’t know the why because it is incapable of understanding anything beyond the instruction or the programmer’s code. On the contrary, a human being is not merely capable of understanding why this must be done if X = 0. He can also refuse to do it, if he wants to. This is because he has a living spiritual soul. A human being does not merely have an understanding of why the rule exists. He also has the capability to choose whether to follow the rule or not. Freedom of choice comes along with intelligence. Intelligence and freedom are found only in living souls, not in machines.

The evidence shows that Christianity is not of human origin. If it is of purely human origin, then it will not promulgate rules that are so difficult. Why would man make a religion where chastity is considered a virtue when it is so difficult to practice? Why would it teach honesty when you can get richer more quickly by cheating or theft? The existence of religion, with the Ten Commandments that are so difficult to follow, proves that a human being did not invent that religion and those rules.

Good one. Talking about science is wishful thinking, which you label as science fiction, while religious ideation is realism. Either you have a sense if humor too, or something is askance in your statements.

I guess we just disagree.

There is a growing body of discussion which has not filtered down to the popular media yet on the very topics that you raise. These notions are being turned aside as being somehow human. There appears to be a clear trend.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I disagree with you, and I am not interested in reducing anything. In fact, the entire concept of what life is, is not entirely clear to those who specialize in thinking and writing about it. I would say that you are trying to keep your thinking in such matters rather narrow.

I can provide you with links if you are interested in the topic of defining what life is. But there are sources easily found. For anyone interested, there is a talk on this topic on Ted.com.

Oh, I would love to see that. I’m sure it’s as pretentious as a French art film. Since you can’t seem to define anything, why even speak? You say you’re not reducing anything, but now you’re pretending we don’t even have a solid ground for defining life! Let me help you out:

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased ( death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means. A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organisms— plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water- based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

That seems like a pretty good start. You have yet to actually contribute anything substantial to the discussion. It’s been “this one scientist speculates…” “this other scientist thinks its maybe possible…” but none of these cases have anything to back them. When anyone points this out, you just say, “We don’t know, it could be.” Well, for all we know, there could be a giant Snickers bar in the middle of Saturn. It doesn’t make it a topic of any serious concern.

I’m really not trying to be mean, but it’s hard to take this kind of talk seriously.
Get serious.

 

[Mudgely]

Oh, I would love to see that. I’m sure it’s as pretentious as a French art film. Since you can’t seem to define anything, why even speak? You say you’re not reducing anything, but now you’re pretending we don’t even have a solid ground for defining life! Let me help you out:

That seems like a pretty good start. You have yet to actually contribute anything substantial to the discussion. It’s been “this one scientist speculates…” “this other scientist thinks its maybe possible…” but none of these cases have anything to back them. When anyone points this out, you just say, “We don’t know, it could be.” Well, for all we know, there could be a giant Snickers bar in the middle of Saturn. It doesn’t make it a topic of any serious concern.

I’m really not trying to be mean, but it’s hard to take this kind of talk seriously.
Get serious.

I am not being mean either when I suggest that your first work your way through the latter 20th century, and then try to catch up with the 21st. That is the problem with religions, is it not? The attachment to fantasy, and never being able to reconcile the present?

The notion that life must be carbon based has already been disproved. Try to catch up.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I am not being mean either when I suggest that your first work your way through the latter 20th century, and then try to catch up with the 21st. That is the problem with religions, is it not? The attachment to fantasy, and never being able to reconcile the present?

The notion that life must be carbon based has already been disproved. Try to catch up.

haydenplanetarium.org/faq/2009/06/18/why-should-life-be-carbon-based

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980221b.html

Here are my sources. Where are yours?

Don’t bring religion into this. That’s a blatant red herring. I’m talking pure, hard science. If anyone’s being “religious,” it’s you. You consistently claim as truth completely unsubstantiated speculation just because someone has mused on its possibility.

The notion has not been disproved, because no non carbon based life has ever been found. Again, a FEW scientists speculate on a POSSIBILITY, and you assert it as fact. Science doesn’t even understand how carbon based life came to be, so it certainly can’t prove that anything else could have the same potential, especially without any evidence (i.e. Actual non carbon based life.)