Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
You have your chicken and your egg mixed up in my opinion, OP.

Evolution starts forward blindly - organic chemical reactions forming competitive units, becoming more sophisticated as duplication errors create advantages. Actual brains, cognition, instinct, and belief come much later. Once brains exist they start developing through natural selection, but life precludes 'thought'.

Maybe you can argue that organic compounds have a thermodynamic 'drive' to become life given the right conditions (lots of solvency and energy). But a supernatural engineer completely outside our universe is much harder to grasp.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

CommieGIR posted:

Bacteria and Protozoans Who have the most basic of nervous systems.

They don't have nervous systems, they don't have tissue. Bacteria are more like single cell nanorobots than tiny people. The individual units die to warn the hive mind.


When you look at sponges, coral and portuguese mano'wars, then you see the beginnings of tissue and organs.

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

ShadowCatboy posted:

As I understand it, necessary truths are ones that are true by necessity and cannot have possibly been false (generally a priori). "My parents had a child" is a necessary truth, entirely because "parents" are by definition people who had a child. Contingent truths are ones that could have been false. For example, "My parents had a son (me)" is a contingent truth, because in another time and place I might've been born a girl, or simply not been born at all. Thus, my existence as a son is only comprehensible through an external, uncomfortable-to-think-about explanation.

The Contingency Argument is arguing that the universe's existence is a contingent truth, and hence requires an external explanation rooted around a "necessary being," which they would call God.

Personally I like this argument and it jibes with how subatomic events can only be described statistically, meaning that events only 'definitely' happen when there is an observer involved in the exchange of energy.

Mc Do Well
Aug 2, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

ShadowCatboy posted:

On a more basic level, the idea that human truth must be absolute is kind of a manufactured problem.

I would argue that the humans are the only animal on Earth (possibly in the universe) that is cognizant of reality from the quantum to the cosmic.

While human individuals still live in the same macro world as other mammals our sum knowledge allows us to glimpse at creation as a whole.

  • Locked thread