Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventually..

[lancek4]

To me it is more logical to believe that eventually a 'God' will exist.

So this means that one day the evo-progress of natural-human intelligence will bring about an "ubermensch'?
Or that one day humans will develop into an evolutionary perfection?

Oh wait, that already happened. wasnt that was WW2 was about?

[lancek4]

I like your answer blackbox. You are right in that i put quotes around the word 'God' to differentiate it from denoting a traditional doctrinal God.
In this 'forecasted' reality, a person could come to you and turn a glass of water into wine. If you were none the wiser in relation to the true nature of reality, well that particular individual could have you believe anything from that point on.

The dilema i have is that i have been a witness to 'miracles'...don't bother to quiz me on that. So here i am, left to ponder the true nature of reality, the point of this particular thread is that i can attack it from what i see as a logical, scientific perspective. The only other way i can comprehend this God is to suggest that it formed logic (and intelligence) from the chaos of the early universe

first, what is the point of saying "god" if you dont really mean God. What is the point of saying 'God-like' if there is nothing that would behave in humanity's progression as if we were God, except of someone from the past were to appear in the future.

second, i completely reject the idea that proposes that sometime humanity will reach some "higher plane" or some ethical or moral enlightenment, or that we are progressing toward God or some god-like state of being. Im not sure if that is what you are getting at, but if this occurs it will only occur in a specific mythology or ideology which will naturally exclude a significant portion of what humanity and what that may be.

There is no 'formed logic' of the universe that we have access to. Such a proposition is entirely a human proposition, a human justification. It is entirely metaphysics.

Just listen to the radio show "Coast to Coast" for a few weeks. it is loaded with people who have published books and voiced their various 'intelligent' and 'reasoned out' sensibilities which describe all sorts of rediculous "grand meanings" to life.
Aliens as angels, as creators, physics related to religious revelations, phychic planes of existence, conspiracies -- it goes on forever. and everyone back thier version up with all sort of evidence which makes one think "wow, that sounds so true! Yeah, wow that makes sense". But then you get the next guy using a bunch of different 'evidence' to come to different conclusions. Quite entertaining but totally rediculous.

[lancek4]

How do you know that evolution has no purpose?

Where is the purpose. In what mind is it held. What agency decides.
WHy are you such a blindingly stupid moron?

Evolution has not purpose, except to justify those who need evolution to make rediculous statements.

It's agreed that we are currently unaware of a purpose, no problem there.

We are agreed that there is no purpose to 'typist'.

But how does us being unaware of a purpose automatically equal there being no purpose?

Not even a question
But how does us being unaware that there is no cream-cakes on Mars automatically equal there is no cream cakes on Mars?

you mean one day we will be awakened to our purpose?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to state what we do know?

That would be the shortest post on the Forum in your case.

We are currently unaware of any purpose driving evolution.

We are currently unaware that you represent intelligent life.

That's a fact. Why not stick with the facts? Why the leap to wild speculation?

Fact: you are a moron.

Chaz, you are halliarious!

Adamantly claiming to know there is no purpose is no different than adamantly claiming to know there is a purpose.

Bullshit. Not even close. If you had stopped for 2 seconds to think about it you would now how dumb that statement is.

[/quote][/quote]
He/she isaying that there is purpose in saying that there is no purpose.
The purpose is to say there is not purpose, and that serves the purpose of saying that there might be a purpose one day that we will wake up to.

[lancek4]

What is GOD. Is it man made, that is, created by multiple intelligences out of necessity. Or, did it form logic, intelligence on its own from the chaos of the early universe? ...

If you mean did Humans make 'god' up to explain things they couldn't explain at the time, then yes, it is man-made.

How about God in unknowable and unthink-able. Any positing of God elists the individual in an effort to justify its own existence.

If I say "man made God" then I am justifying a particular expression of myself in a universe.
If I say 'God is logic' or any other predicate for God, I am likewise asserting my justification of my own experience in a way which asserts a particular ethical take on what the universe should be.

If we say that the conglomerate of human experience expressed amounts to an understanding of what god may be, I am also asserting that I have a priviledged experience and am attempting to justify an ethical configuration of the universe.

[chaz wyman]

How do you know that evolution has no purpose?

Where is the purpose. In what mind is it held. What agency decides.
WHy are you such a blindingly stupid moron?

Evolution has not purpose, except to justify those who need evolution to make rediculous statements.

True. But the fact that evolution has not a purpose is its strength.
Why did you not answer the question?

It's agreed that we are currently unaware of a purpose, no problem there.

We are agreed that there is no purpose to 'typist'.

But how does us being unaware of a purpose automatically equal there being no purpose?

Not even a question
But how does us being unaware that there is no cream-cakes on Mars automatically equal there is no cream cakes on Mars?

you mean one day we will be awakened to our purpose?

No, we have every reason to accept that the universe has no purpose for us. We are nothing but a thin biological scum on the surface of a third rate planet in an obscure galaxy among billions of others. We are nothing. To attribute to us a grand purpose in the scheme of things is beyond arrogance.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to state what we do know?

That would be the shortest post on the Forum in your case.

We are currently unaware of any purpose driving evolution.

We are currently unaware that you represent intelligent life.

That's a fact. Why not stick with the facts? Why the leap to wild speculation?

Fact: you are a moron.

Chaz, you are halliarious!

Then laugh!

Adamantly claiming to know there is no purpose is no different than adamantly claiming to know there is a purpose.

Bullshit. Not even close. If you had stopped for 2 seconds to think about it you would now how dumb that statement is.

[/quote]
He/she isaying that there is purpose in saying that there is no purpose.
The purpose is to say there is not purpose, and that serves the purpose of saying that there might be a purpose one day that we will wake up to.[/quote]

The absence of evidence of purpose is like the absence of evidence of a pink and green teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri.
Let's say we have a purpose - a big one - a reason we have been created. It is a thought without merit if we do not know what it is. It is as meaningless as if there were no purpose at all.
WHy pretend there is a thing when there is nothing to support such a view.
Maybe there is dragons, maybe there are faeries. Its just stupid to harbour a belief in such thing, even harbour a belief in their possibility.
I think we are witnessing an evolved propensity. The myth that purposefulness has been very useful to us. It exists in all religions. But there is no surprise that none seem to agree on what it is. It may exist genetically or as a cultural virus or both. But we should not be carried away by this potentially destructive tendency as it has proved to be for thousands of years; as our different purposes have clashed in a million conflicts since the dawn of time. It is time to get real - to understand our miniscule and pathetic scale in the vastness of it all. Look at the stars and show a little humility.

[Arising_uk]

...or as a cultural virus ...

[attofishpi]

To me it is more logical to believe that eventually a 'God' will exist.

So this means that one day the evo-progress of natural-human intelligence will bring about an "ubermensch'?
Or that one day humans will develop into an evolutionary perfection?

WIKIp ...."There is no overall consensus regarding the precise meaning of the Übermensch, nor on the importance of the concept in Nietzsche's thought."

One day the evo-progress of natual-human intelligence will bring about a sytem capable of replicating our perceived universe. This would be brought about by necessity,
since available energy resources will deplete in the future. Our physical bodies require far too much energy, hence my point, pure consciousness will remain…until the last thought.

This proposed system is not perfect, for obvious reasons.

First, what is the point of saying "god" if you dont really mean God. What is the point of saying 'God-like' if there is nothing that would behave in humanity's progression as if we were God, except of someone from the past were to appear in the future.

This governing entity, AI-operating-system..would appear God-like (if it appears at all) to those born of the system. Hence ‘God’...

second, i completely reject the idea that proposes that sometime humanity will reach some "higher plane" or some ethical or moral enlightenment, or that we are progressing toward God or some god-like state of being. Im not sure if that is what you are getting at, but if this occurs it will only occur in a specific mythology or ideology which will naturally exclude a significant portion of what humanity and what that may be.

Survival of the most adaptable>>>evolution. Survival of the most moral>>>God. Is there anything pleasant about a fight for survival? What I am suggesting is not particulary pleasant. Enlightenment? The lights are dimming…

[chaz wyman]

...or as a cultural virus ...

I know you may be surprised considering our various discussions - but, although this is no explanation, it is a good description that helps account for the persistence and the ubiquity of this obsession; that the world is purposeful, as such a belief is part of a prehistoric strategy to control the world around primitive emergent humans. Simply humans that see objects in the world as purposeful had more advantage than those that did not. The extension of this trait to encompass the entire universe is a useless appendage, as is common in evolution. From this we can understand why religion is so common even when it is harmful.
I do not pretend that the purpose of purposefulness is religion or even any of the advantages that stem from the acquisition of this trait. I do say that it's persistence can be described in Darwinian terms.

[lancek4]

Or that one day humans will develop into an evolutionary perfection?

WIKIp ...."There is no overall consensus regarding the precise meaning of the Übermensch, nor on the importance of the concept in Nietzsche's thought."[/quote]
Is this a quote from Wikipedia? Anyways I was just being fecietious (sp?), suggesting that the early 20th century was the culmination of a type of thinking that saw history as a specific sequence of progress that lead to human beings and then human beings being capable of perfection.

One day the evo-progress of natual-human intelligence will bring about a sytem capable of replicating our perceived universe. This would be brought about by necessity,
since available energy resources will deplete in the future. Our physical bodies require far too much energy, hence my point, pure consciousness will remain…until the last thought.

this is one of the most metephysical and religious statement i have heard, up there with those on "Coast-to Coast". Honestly, listen to the radio show. Mountain time it is on 630AM at 9pm every night. and it is pod cast on the internet. You will hear many, many poeple who have published books who are describing thier version of what will occur in the future, based upon thier logical conclusions of evidence. And everyone has different conclusions, some of the evidence overlaps, but every one has thier own take on it - and they sound good, thier logic and reason behind thier schemes sound pretty good. Really, you have to listen to these people, they sound like you do here. Maybe you could argue with them about which version is true.


This governing entity, AI-operating-system..would appear God-like (if it appears at all) to those born of the system. Hence ‘God’...[/quote] this would only occur from the perspective of the humanity that we live with right now. Humanity makes meaning and sense out of their present moment so it is exactly natural and human at all time, or at least has the same qualitative categories for reality at any time: say religion, technology, idea, etc... maybe not the same terms, but the same "everyday-ness" of being human.

Survival of the most adaptable>>>evolution. Survival of the most moral>>>God. Is there anything pleasant about a fight for survival? What I am suggesting is not particulary pleasant. Enlightenment? The lights are dimming…

[/quote]
Ok I might have not read you thoroughly.
Ok the lights are dimming.. same difference.

What, are you proposing a 'Matrix" kind of future for humanity?
whatever humanity becomes, it will be exactly human. good bad is always in the eyes of the ethical parties.

[attofishpi]

[attofishpi]

What, are you proposing a 'Matrix" kind of future for humanity?
whatever humanity becomes, it will be exactly human. good bad is always in the eyes of the ethical parties.

Mmm...the future does appear somewhat bleak from what i have proposed. There is a sage i know, or i should say, there is a sage that knows me. It would appear to me, that the likes of these sages are very aware of the nature of True reality...but they are not forthcoming.

What pigeon hole are you in? Theist\Atheist etc...?

That radio station btw...no thanks...if i was on holiday with some free time to take in other peoples stuff then maybe.

[Arising_uk]

... It would appear to me, that the likes of these sages are very aware of the nature of True reality...but they are not forthcoming. ...

Ever wonder why?

[attofishpi]

... It would appear to me, that the likes of these sages are very aware of the nature of True reality...but they are not forthcoming. ...

Ever wonder why?

Yep. What is your angle?

[Arising_uk]

That they're not 'very aware of the nature of True reality', especially if you mean by your 'sage' this person who thinks the animals are very upset with us.

[attofishpi]

That they're not 'very aware of the nature of True reality', especially if you mean by your 'sage' this person who thinks the animals are very upset with us.

Eh?