“Lazarus, come out!” (page 4)

peacefulpete

Sbf... I know it was just an analogy but, a polygon with infinite sides is a circle. IOW..An infinite number of squares form a circle. Intuitive or not.

slimboyfat

That’s not what I said. I said:

if we had an infinite number of squares then one of them is bound to be a circle. It’s that the statement defies logic.

Regarding evolution and the interpretations of archaeologists/anthropologists (and the possibility that they can misinterpret evidence, or jump to conclusions), the article at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/10/1161652099/monkey-stone-flakes-early-humans-tools might interest readers. I found it interesting.

peacefulpete

Sbf...I understood you just fine. You were saying, somethings are just nonsensical, and illustrated it saying a square cannot be a circle.

I borrowed your illustration to show that what sometimes appears to be nonsensical is possible. Let's not argue about analogies.

You sense a supernatural being existed 'before' the point physics break down, and the end your inquiry. I say the point physics breaks down, is the necessary end of inquiry. You are fine using imagination, I am not.

peacefulpete

Disillusioned JW.....The article stresses the fact that distantly related non-Homo primates use percussive tools (hammer stones) that produce flakes that at times might appear to be intentionally produced. This complicates the hypothesis that similar flakes associated with the earliest hominid sites were used as tools. What this means is that we need to seek corroborating evidence such as scraped bone, or flakes that clearly demonstrate intentional production, for greater confidence we are identifying tool making not just the incidental result of tool use.

Some non-Homo primates (and some other animals) have shown an aptitude for tool use, even production in some cases. This is the challenge of identifying behavior from simple artifacts.

Interestingly, an orangutan has been observed utilizing a sharp stone flake as a cutting tool it did not create. It seems plausible that the percussive tool use led to the intentional flake production, once the flakes were recognized as useful. This slight advancement might have been repeated countless times among primates. This emphasizes that homo evolution was not marked by huge leaps of skill and intelligence and that we need be cautious in assuming a behavior associated with stone flakes, especially so near the point of divergence from non-Homo ancestors.

slimboyfat

Physics breaks down before the universe began. But is consciousness reducible to physics, or is it something else? I think it’s something else, because nothing physical accounts for conscious experience. On that basis consciousness may precede the universe and space and time. That ultimate consciousness, or intention we call God. Everything in this world rests on something else, but the what that everything ultimately rests upon is God. Once you see this it is almost impossible to see the world any other way. There is no such thing as “evidence” for God, as such, it is simply obvious that he exists because how else could we exist?

peacefulpete

What you call obvious is not.

Awareness is present in all life forms with senses. Self-awareness is present in animals with social group needs. It seems clear the skill is an evolved one. Seeing yourself in others or seeing others in yourself. What separates us from other animals is a matter of degree and refinement of that skill, not a miraculous insertion of divinity.

This skill is a brain process. Those with frontal lobe damage for example often have diminished self awareness/consciousness.

TonusOH

slimboyfat: I’m not saying it’s improbable that the universe arose by itself. I’m saying it doesn’t make sense.

I feel much the same way. There seem to be two approaches:

1. The mass of the universe --which is an amount I cannot comprehend-- was once reduced to a pinpoint that was many times smaller than an atom --a measurment I cannot comprehend. At some point, it began to rapidly expand outwards, allowing the universe to exist and begin to take the form it has today.

2. A being --who exists on some plane of reality outside of our physical universe, and who has always existed (cannot comprehend!)-- created this universe and everything in it.

Neither of those make intuitive sense. I recognize that I lack the requisite education in astronomy and physics to understand the first concept. I accept that scientists have come to some general agreement on it, and that they must show their work in order to support any claims made in that direction. But, at my level as a layman, I do not comprehend it.

As for the latter, while I am willing to accept that a God could exist, I cannot accept the concept of a caring interventionist, given what I do understand. This being creates this universe, and creates an infinitesimally tiny speck within it which harbors even tinier beings who dwell upon its surface. And this being is concerned with demanding the respect and adoration of these beings, threatening them with eternal joy or pain as a result of their choices. How does someone create something as magnificant as the universe, then become so petty when dealing with the tiniest speck within? I cannot comprehend this.

If God exists, I think it's an unemotional scientist. Or at least it has no emotion towards us- we're the crud growing in one of his petrie dishes, which he'll eventually flush down the sink after making a few notes and trying again. If God doesn't exist, then the universe apparently came about this way through a mechanism that is not yet completely understood. And that would be the truth, whether it made any sense to me or not.

cofty

I agree. If 'god' does exist then existing is the sum total of what he does.

Reality proves that all the theistic versions of god are impossible.

“Lazarus, come out!”

Share this