If there is a God...

[Montrovant]

The laws of nature existed before space and time? What? The laws of nature existed before nature?

And what, specifically, are the laws of nature that make intelligence "predestined to arise"?

Yes, it is too bad you don't know anything about the origin of the universe.

But yeah, science proves that the laws of nature existed before space and time. Don't you love science?

I don't think such proof exists. I would appreciate your providing it. Defining the "laws of nature" first would probably help. Also, was there even a "before" the creation of time? Before is a temporal concept. Is it, as in the Stephen Hawking quote, like asking "What is north of the north pole?"

Space and time were created through a cosmic tunneling event that followed the laws of quantum mechanics and the conservation of energy. Therefore, natural laws were in place before space and time itself because the creation of space and time followed the laws of nature.

You seem pretty certain about how space and time were created. Actually, you seem pretty certain that your views of a universe of which you can observe only a very small part are correct in general.

100%. I love science.

Is science now about absolute certainty about the beginning of the universe?

 

[Montrovant]

That's ridiculous.

First, there is no reason someone must agree that complexity is the definition to use for the pinnacle of creations.

Second, that you, or I, or all of humanity does not know of something more complex than consciousness, in no way means such a thing does not exist. Do you think humanity knows everything there is to know about the universe?

There are other points that could be made, but those two should be more than enough.

Don't be silly. In evolutionary terms there is nothing more advanced than beings that know and create. The phenomenon that sets them apart is consciousness and intelligence. Consciousness exists as it's own unique phenomenon and is subject to evolution.

And since you still have not named anything more advanced than consciousness, you have no evidence for your beliefs.

The requirement to know everything in the universe before you can know anything in the universe is laughable.

You have zero evidence for your beliefs. Say it with me.

I did not in any way require you to know everything in the universe before you know anything in the universe. Instead, you made a claim about everything in the universe; i.e. that consciousness is the pinnacle of creation and that intelligence is the ultimate creation of the universe. In order to know if something is the ultimate creation of the universe, you would need to know (or, at least, have a pretty good idea) everything that is in the universe.

Or do you actually think it makes sense to assume that because intelligence is "the ultimate creation" of the extraordinarily tiny portion of the universe you can observe (a totally subjective descriptor, but we'll ignore that for now), it must be the same for the rest of the universe that you cannot observe?

Which beliefs, specifically, do I have that I have zero evidence for? The belief that whether something is "the ultimate creation" is subjective? The belief that if you cannot observe 99.99999% of what is in the universe, you cannot be sure about what else might be in that universe? The belief that I don't have to name something "more advanced than consciousness" (which, by the way, you haven't clearly defined: what makes consciousness more advanced than other things?) to say that there could be something more advanced than consciousness somewhere in the vastness of the universe which humanity cannot observe?

Have you named anything more evolutionary advanced than consciousness? No.

Can you name anything more evolutionary advanced than consciousness? No.

I'm sorry, but I reject your portrayal of evolution and advancement, at least insofar as biological evolution is concerned.

And, as I have explained, whether or not I can name anything more "evolutionary advanced" than consciousness does not prove anything about the entirety of the universe.

It isn't whether or not you can or can't. You can't name anything more "evolutionary advanced" than consciousness.

And again, it does not matter if I cannot. Ignoring the lack of definition for what "evolutionary advanced" means, I can only observe an extremely small portion of the universe. The same is true of you, and every other human being. Therefore, there is no way for any human to know whether something more "evolutionary advanced" might exist elsewhere in the universe.

 

[ding]

Actually biological evolution has two component; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage and this has led to our ever increasing march to intelligence whose potential existed before space and time.

But evolution is not limited to just biological evolution. Our universe and everything in it has been evolving since the creation of space and time.

That humanity has gained more intelligence than other species does not mean intelligence is an inevitable component of evolution, nor does it mean evolution is about moving from a less advanced to a more advanced state. One might ask why species which have been around for far longer than humanity have not evolved the same level of intelligence, if that is the case.

I already explained that to you.

I do not see an explanation for why a species would evolve to a 'less advanced' state if evolution is moving "from a less advanced state to a more advanced state." Perhaps I missed it.

You might as well be arguing that no species should have gone extinct, but 99.9999% of them did.

The reality is that there is a direction of evolution and that direction is towards intelligence. Individual species mean nothing. Here you are the pinnacle of creation and you don't even know it.

Again, if evolution moves toward intelligence, why are species who have been around much longer than humans not more intelligent? Evolution is not a movement toward a fixed point. It is not a specific sequence of changes that all species go through. It is about what traits best support survival and reproduction. Given the right environmental conditions, humanity could die off and another species, cockroaches are the popular choice, could survive and thrive. That has nothing to do with one species being more advanced than another, it is only about what species can survive and reproduce in a given environment.

As per usual, feel free to provide evidence of your claim that evolution moves in a particular direction, that being toward intelligence. As yet, you have done nothing but make the claim.

So you deny the self evident because every species has not developed intelligence? Am I understanding you correctly?

Try seeing the universe as a living organism. It's a system. Everything is connected. The rich tapestry around us was necessary for human intelligence to emerge. That is it's role in nature.

 

[ding]

Yes, it is too bad you don't know anything about the origin of the universe.

But yeah, science proves that the laws of nature existed before space and time. Don't you love science?

I don't think such proof exists. I would appreciate your providing it. Defining the "laws of nature" first would probably help. Also, was there even a "before" the creation of time? Before is a temporal concept. Is it, as in the Stephen Hawking quote, like asking "What is north of the north pole?"

Space and time were created through a cosmic tunneling event that followed the laws of quantum mechanics and the conservation of energy. Therefore, natural laws were in place before space and time itself because the creation of space and time followed the laws of nature.

You seem pretty certain about how space and time were created. Actually, you seem pretty certain that your views of a universe of which you can observe only a very small part are correct in general.

100%. I love science.

Is science now about absolute certainty about the beginning of the universe?

Do you have a better explanation as a basis for your rejection?

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. In evolutionary terms there is nothing more advanced than beings that know and create. The phenomenon that sets them apart is consciousness and intelligence. Consciousness exists as it's own unique phenomenon and is subject to evolution.

And since you still have not named anything more advanced than consciousness, you have no evidence for your beliefs.

The requirement to know everything in the universe before you can know anything in the universe is laughable.

You have zero evidence for your beliefs. Say it with me.

I did not in any way require you to know everything in the universe before you know anything in the universe. Instead, you made a claim about everything in the universe; i.e. that consciousness is the pinnacle of creation and that intelligence is the ultimate creation of the universe. In order to know if something is the ultimate creation of the universe, you would need to know (or, at least, have a pretty good idea) everything that is in the universe.

Or do you actually think it makes sense to assume that because intelligence is "the ultimate creation" of the extraordinarily tiny portion of the universe you can observe (a totally subjective descriptor, but we'll ignore that for now), it must be the same for the rest of the universe that you cannot observe?

Which beliefs, specifically, do I have that I have zero evidence for? The belief that whether something is "the ultimate creation" is subjective? The belief that if you cannot observe 99.99999% of what is in the universe, you cannot be sure about what else might be in that universe? The belief that I don't have to name something "more advanced than consciousness" (which, by the way, you haven't clearly defined: what makes consciousness more advanced than other things?) to say that there could be something more advanced than consciousness somewhere in the vastness of the universe which humanity cannot observe?

Have you named anything more evolutionary advanced than consciousness? No.

Can you name anything more evolutionary advanced than consciousness? No.

I'm sorry, but I reject your portrayal of evolution and advancement, at least insofar as biological evolution is concerned.

And, as I have explained, whether or not I can name anything more "evolutionary advanced" than consciousness does not prove anything about the entirety of the universe.

It isn't whether or not you can or can't. You can't name anything more "evolutionary advanced" than consciousness.

And again, it does not matter if I cannot. Ignoring the lack of definition for what "evolutionary advanced" means, I can only observe an extremely small portion of the universe. The same is true of you, and every other human being. Therefore, there is no way for any human to know whether something more "evolutionary advanced" might exist elsewhere in the universe.

It absolutely does matter. It means you have no evidence to reject the self evident.

 

[Montrovant]

I did not in any way require you to know everything in the universe before you know anything in the universe. Instead, you made a claim about everything in the universe; i.e. that consciousness is the pinnacle of creation and that intelligence is the ultimate creation of the universe. In order to know if something is the ultimate creation of the universe, you would need to know (or, at least, have a pretty good idea) everything that is in the universe.

Or do you actually think it makes sense to assume that because intelligence is "the ultimate creation" of the extraordinarily tiny portion of the universe you can observe (a totally subjective descriptor, but we'll ignore that for now), it must be the same for the rest of the universe that you cannot observe?

Which beliefs, specifically, do I have that I have zero evidence for? The belief that whether something is "the ultimate creation" is subjective? The belief that if you cannot observe 99.99999% of what is in the universe, you cannot be sure about what else might be in that universe? The belief that I don't have to name something "more advanced than consciousness" (which, by the way, you haven't clearly defined: what makes consciousness more advanced than other things?) to say that there could be something more advanced than consciousness somewhere in the vastness of the universe which humanity cannot observe?

Have you named anything more evolutionary advanced than consciousness? No.

Can you name anything more evolutionary advanced than consciousness? No.

I'm sorry, but I reject your portrayal of evolution and advancement, at least insofar as biological evolution is concerned.

And, as I have explained, whether or not I can name anything more "evolutionary advanced" than consciousness does not prove anything about the entirety of the universe.

It isn't whether or not you can or can't. You can't name anything more "evolutionary advanced" than consciousness.

And again, it does not matter if I cannot. Ignoring the lack of definition for what "evolutionary advanced" means, I can only observe an extremely small portion of the universe. The same is true of you, and every other human being. Therefore, there is no way for any human to know whether something more "evolutionary advanced" might exist elsewhere in the universe.

It absolutely does matter. It means you have no evidence to reject the self evident.

That it is self evident is (clearly) just your opinion.

You are taking an extraordinarily limited amount of information and assuming it applies to the entire universe. Worse, you aren't doing it with any sort of objective fact, but rather with a subjective opinion. You have not defined "evolutionary advanced" nor explained how you can extrapolate from the little knowledge humanity possesses that the thing you consider to be most "evolutionary advanced" is the most "evolutionary advanced" thing in the entire universe.

What I reject is your assertion that you know enough about the entire universe to know that something on Earth is the most "evolutionary advanced" thing that exists or has existed or will exist.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't think such proof exists. I would appreciate your providing it. Defining the "laws of nature" first would probably help. Also, was there even a "before" the creation of time? Before is a temporal concept. Is it, as in the Stephen Hawking quote, like asking "What is north of the north pole?"

Space and time were created through a cosmic tunneling event that followed the laws of quantum mechanics and the conservation of energy. Therefore, natural laws were in place before space and time itself because the creation of space and time followed the laws of nature.

You seem pretty certain about how space and time were created. Actually, you seem pretty certain that your views of a universe of which you can observe only a very small part are correct in general.

100%. I love science.

Is science now about absolute certainty about the beginning of the universe?

Do you have a better explanation as a basis for your rejection?

What rejection is that? That you know without doubt or possibility of error how the universe began?

 

[Montrovant]

That humanity has gained more intelligence than other species does not mean intelligence is an inevitable component of evolution, nor does it mean evolution is about moving from a less advanced to a more advanced state. One might ask why species which have been around for far longer than humanity have not evolved the same level of intelligence, if that is the case.

I already explained that to you.

I do not see an explanation for why a species would evolve to a 'less advanced' state if evolution is moving "from a less advanced state to a more advanced state." Perhaps I missed it.

You might as well be arguing that no species should have gone extinct, but 99.9999% of them did.

The reality is that there is a direction of evolution and that direction is towards intelligence. Individual species mean nothing. Here you are the pinnacle of creation and you don't even know it.

Again, if evolution moves toward intelligence, why are species who have been around much longer than humans not more intelligent? Evolution is not a movement toward a fixed point. It is not a specific sequence of changes that all species go through. It is about what traits best support survival and reproduction. Given the right environmental conditions, humanity could die off and another species, cockroaches are the popular choice, could survive and thrive. That has nothing to do with one species being more advanced than another, it is only about what species can survive and reproduce in a given environment.

As per usual, feel free to provide evidence of your claim that evolution moves in a particular direction, that being toward intelligence. As yet, you have done nothing but make the claim.

So you deny the self evident because every species has not developed intelligence? Am I understanding you correctly?

Try seeing the universe as a living organism. It's a system. Everything is connected. The rich tapestry around us was necessary for human intelligence to emerge. That is it's role in nature.

You don't seem to be understand much correctly.

That evolution is moving toward intelligent is not self evident.

Why is human intelligence the role of the universe? That is amazingly arrogant. Humanity is a nearly infinitesimal speck in the vastness of the universe, why should I believe that vast universe is there to bring about human intelligence? And how is that self evident?

 

[ding]

That it is self evident is (clearly) just your opinion.

It is so self evident that it is impossible for you to name anything more evolutionary advanced than intelligence.

 

[Montrovant]

That it is self evident is (clearly) just your opinion.

It is so self evident that it is impossible for you to name anything more evolutionary advanced than intelligence.

I wish you would at least use the term evolutionarily rather than evolutionary advanced.

One more time: Whether or not I can name anything more "evolutionary advanced" than intelligence is immaterial, as I do not know the vast majority of what exists in the universe. Neither do you, unless you are not claiming to be other than human. That being the case, it is literally impossible to know if intelligence is the most "evolutionary advanced" thing in the universe. You may as well go to a beach for the first time in your life, pick up a handful of sand, choose one grain of that sand which is the largest, and claim it is the largest grain of sand in the entire world. After all, it is the largest grain of sand in the handful you picked up, so why wouldn't you extrapolate that to all the sand in the world?

Anyway, you might want to define "evolutionary advanced" before you say anything about it self evident.

 

[ding]

Anyway, you might want to define "evolutionary advanced" before you say anything about it self evident.

You don't realize you are the most evolutionary advanced creation in the universe? Really?

You think there is something else? What would it's attributes be? A higher intelligence? A cosmic structure?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

You don't realize you are the most evolutionary advanced creation in the universe? Really?

the christian is required to mimic their 4thy century book ....

 

[Montrovant]

Anyway, you might want to define "evolutionary advanced" before you say anything about it self evident.

You don't realize you are the most evolutionary advanced creation in the universe? Really?

You think there is something else? What would it's attributes be? A higher intelligence? A cosmic structure?

You don't realize that you can only observe a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the universe? Really?

You don't think you need to define something if you want to make claims about it? What makes something evolutionarily advanced? Is it the amount of changes it has undergone within a species? The number of different species that can be traced back through history? The length of time a species has survived on the Earth? The number of organ systems, or organs, a creature has?

How can I tell you if something is more evolutionarily advanced if I don't know just what you mean by that term?

 

[ding]

Anyway, you might want to define "evolutionary advanced" before you say anything about it self evident.

You don't realize you are the most evolutionary advanced creation in the universe? Really?

You think there is something else? What would it's attributes be? A higher intelligence? A cosmic structure?

You don't realize that you can only observe a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the universe? Really?

You don't think you need to define something if you want to make claims about it? What makes something evolutionarily advanced? Is it the amount of changes it has undergone within a species? The number of different species that can be traced back through history? The length of time a species has survived on the Earth? The number of organ systems, or organs, a creature has?

How can I tell you if something is more evolutionarily advanced if I don't know just what you mean by that term?

Let's do a thought exercise. What would the attributes be of something that was more evolved than humans?

Tell me what attribute you would think it would possess that would make you think it was more advanced?

Surely you can name something, right?

 

[ding]

Flying spaghetti monsters?

 

[Montrovant]

Anyway, you might want to define "evolutionary advanced" before you say anything about it self evident.

You don't realize you are the most evolutionary advanced creation in the universe? Really?

You think there is something else? What would it's attributes be? A higher intelligence? A cosmic structure?

You don't realize that you can only observe a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the universe? Really?

You don't think you need to define something if you want to make claims about it? What makes something evolutionarily advanced? Is it the amount of changes it has undergone within a species? The number of different species that can be traced back through history? The length of time a species has survived on the Earth? The number of organ systems, or organs, a creature has?

How can I tell you if something is more evolutionarily advanced if I don't know just what you mean by that term?

Let's do a thought exercise. What would the attributes be of something that was more evolved than humans?

Tell me what attribute you would think it would possess that would make you think it was more advanced?

Surely you can name something, right?

I'm not sure how I would define evolutionary advancement, other than comparing a species that survives versus one that does not. That is because, despite your claims otherwise, evolution is not some sort of straight-line path toward a particular trait.

I might say a species has a more advanced technology, maybe even a more advanced intelligence, but more evolved? That is a phrase without a clear meaning. Just look at how many times I've asked you to define evolutionarily advanced, and you have neglected to do so.

So, yet again, how do you define this evolutionary advancement you keep talking about?

 

[ding]

Anyway, you might want to define "evolutionary advanced" before you say anything about it self evident.

You don't realize you are the most evolutionary advanced creation in the universe? Really?

You think there is something else? What would it's attributes be? A higher intelligence? A cosmic structure?

You don't realize that you can only observe a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the universe? Really?

You don't think you need to define something if you want to make claims about it? What makes something evolutionarily advanced? Is it the amount of changes it has undergone within a species? The number of different species that can be traced back through history? The length of time a species has survived on the Earth? The number of organ systems, or organs, a creature has?

How can I tell you if something is more evolutionarily advanced if I don't know just what you mean by that term?

Let's do a thought exercise. What would the attributes be of something that was more evolved than humans?

Tell me what attribute you would think it would possess that would make you think it was more advanced?

Surely you can name something, right?

I'm not sure how I would define evolutionary advancement, other than comparing a species that survives versus one that does not. That is because, despite your claims otherwise, evolution is not some sort of straight-line path toward a particular trait.

I might say a species has a more advanced technology, maybe even a more advanced intelligence, but more evolved? That is a phrase without a clear meaning. Just look at how many times I've asked you to define evolutionarily advanced, and you have neglected to do so.

So, yet again, how do you define this evolutionary advancement you keep talking about?

You are kidding, right?

Do you know that they can't even identify where consciousness resides in the brain? It's not understood how clusters of neurons from the diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form consciousness. There's no evidence that there is one site for consciousness. They think it is truly a collective neural effort.

And you are still going to play games, bro? C'mon. Elevate your game and have a real discussion.

 

[BreezeWood]

Do you know that they can't even identify where consciousness resides in the brain?

that too would be difficult for Flora as well, their consciousness.

 

[Montrovant]

Anyway, you might want to define "evolutionary advanced" before you say anything about it self evident.

You don't realize you are the most evolutionary advanced creation in the universe? Really?

You think there is something else? What would it's attributes be? A higher intelligence? A cosmic structure?

You don't realize that you can only observe a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the universe? Really?

You don't think you need to define something if you want to make claims about it? What makes something evolutionarily advanced? Is it the amount of changes it has undergone within a species? The number of different species that can be traced back through history? The length of time a species has survived on the Earth? The number of organ systems, or organs, a creature has?

How can I tell you if something is more evolutionarily advanced if I don't know just what you mean by that term?

Let's do a thought exercise. What would the attributes be of something that was more evolved than humans?

Tell me what attribute you would think it would possess that would make you think it was more advanced?

Surely you can name something, right?

I'm not sure how I would define evolutionary advancement, other than comparing a species that survives versus one that does not. That is because, despite your claims otherwise, evolution is not some sort of straight-line path toward a particular trait.

I might say a species has a more advanced technology, maybe even a more advanced intelligence, but more evolved? That is a phrase without a clear meaning. Just look at how many times I've asked you to define evolutionarily advanced, and you have neglected to do so.

So, yet again, how do you define this evolutionary advancement you keep talking about?

You are kidding, right?

Do you know that they can't even identify where consciousness resides in the brain? It's not understood how clusters of neurons from the diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form consciousness. There's no evidence that there is one site for consciousness. They think it is truly a collective neural effort.

And you are still going to play games, bro? C'mon. Elevate your game and have a real discussion.

And still you refuse to define the evolutionary advancement you are talking about. "Elevate your game"? If you can't provide a definition for the basic premise of your argument, perhaps you are the one who need to "elevate your game."

Also, yet again, what does it matter if consciousness is the most "evolutionary advanced" thing humanity is aware of? How does that make it the most "evolutionary advanced" thing in the universe? Are you honestly trying to claim that humanity is aware of everything in the universe to know that nothing else could be more "evolutionary advanced"?

 

[ding]

You don't realize you are the most evolutionary advanced creation in the universe? Really?

You think there is something else? What would it's attributes be? A higher intelligence? A cosmic structure?

You don't realize that you can only observe a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the universe? Really?

You don't think you need to define something if you want to make claims about it? What makes something evolutionarily advanced? Is it the amount of changes it has undergone within a species? The number of different species that can be traced back through history? The length of time a species has survived on the Earth? The number of organ systems, or organs, a creature has?

How can I tell you if something is more evolutionarily advanced if I don't know just what you mean by that term?

Let's do a thought exercise. What would the attributes be of something that was more evolved than humans?

Tell me what attribute you would think it would possess that would make you think it was more advanced?

Surely you can name something, right?

I'm not sure how I would define evolutionary advancement, other than comparing a species that survives versus one that does not. That is because, despite your claims otherwise, evolution is not some sort of straight-line path toward a particular trait.

I might say a species has a more advanced technology, maybe even a more advanced intelligence, but more evolved? That is a phrase without a clear meaning. Just look at how many times I've asked you to define evolutionarily advanced, and you have neglected to do so.

So, yet again, how do you define this evolutionary advancement you keep talking about?

You are kidding, right?

Do you know that they can't even identify where consciousness resides in the brain? It's not understood how clusters of neurons from the diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form consciousness. There's no evidence that there is one site for consciousness. They think it is truly a collective neural effort.

And you are still going to play games, bro? C'mon. Elevate your game and have a real discussion.

And still you refuse to define the evolutionary advancement you are talking about. "Elevate your game"? If you can't provide a definition for the basic premise of your argument, perhaps you are the one who need to "elevate your game."

Also, yet again, what does it matter if consciousness is the most "evolutionary advanced" thing humanity is aware of? How does that make it the most "evolutionary advanced" thing in the universe? Are you honestly trying to claim that humanity is aware of everything in the universe to know that nothing else could be more "evolutionary advanced"?

It matters because it is true and it goes to my point that creation of intelligence is the purpose of the universe.

My worldview doesn't require me to ignore the reality around me. No wonder you get "F"'s.