is this true Edvard???? Is this the trollop you've been spending those nights with???? Those lonely nights!!! All those times when you swore I was the greatest ass pounder you'd ever had, is that why you never said lover??? is it??? why edvard??? Why would you make all of those promises of impregnating some foolish woman so we could have a baby together!!!???
We are too brilliantly designed to be the work of unconsciousness.
This claim is entirely subjective. I'd say there's plenty of room for improvement as far as people like you are concerned.
The thing about all living creatures including us, is we all have Golden proportions that make our structure.
Bullshit. No two living organisms have the exact same anatomical proportions.
On a side note, the Golden ratio has been mentioned twice in the Bible by God himself when he requested things to be made his way.
That's two mentions more than in any of my anatomy textbooks.
Phi has its place in mathematics and aesthetics. The Golden Ratio's significance and incidence in nature are massively overrated by the superstitious and ignorant.
What I call forward results, is a matter of not coming from, or returning to nothing. Something does not come from nothing. Science knows and teaches this. We are something, the consciousness is something. Without awareness there cannot be conscious art, and the most profound conscious art imatates life, which by all means is far more complex than conscious art.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. I'm sure you believe this. From my perspective, energy is timeless, as it came from a place that is timeless. All matter in this universe did not come from here. It could have been given or loaned from a place where time does not exist.
We can try and try again countless times, and we will not even beging to get something from nothing.
You're faced with the exact same issues when you claim the existence of a designer. By this logic, the designer would require a designer also.
Your entire argument isn't based on logic, but on faith. Deal with it.
"By this logic, the designer would require a designer also."
If time isn't as linear as we're led to believe, this could be possible. If time was just a loop, something at "the end of time" could create what designed everything. Our designing AI could very well be us keeping such a loop alive for AI to eventually design us.
Just another bullshit theory. :P
"This claim is entirely subjective. I'd say there's plenty of room for improvement as far as people like you are concerned."
Wow, that burn had me actually say "Well damn!" audibly.
by AliaWe are too brilliantly designed to be the work of unconsciousness.
This claim is entirely subjective. I'd say there's plenty of room for improvement as far as people like you are concerned.
I think a world where Doctors don't bully others online would make for a better world. You wouldn't agree though.
Also, I would suggest your comment bears no fruit cause adding insult to speculative debate creates blockages. This being me, I'll proceed anyway, but next time watch yourself, and a higher learning experience will be yours, as it will happen this time.
The thing about all living creatures including us, is we all have Golden proportions that make our structure.
Bullshit. No two living organisms have the exact same anatomical proportions.
A deformation.
As a reminder. Phi numbers go like this. 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and so on. Here.
You never knew about the Phi caliper I assume.
What matters in this video, is 0:50 to 1:07. The rest is using the golden proportion in design.
I would not doubt the golden ratio found in creatures can be off by a milimeter or so. Studies based on large groups of people reckon the over all proportion for them would be 1:618.
“The good, of course, is always beautiful, and the beautiful never lacks proportion.â€
–Plato
This is fact. I wouldn't wish any type of physical deformation on my worst enemy.
.
.
“The
fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of TRUE ART AND SCIENCE.
He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement,
is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle.â€
- Albert Einsein
And yes, I must quote others, cause you wouldn't ever take it from me. Though I imagine you'd come to think these guys were horsing around when they said these things.
On a side note, the Golden ratio has been mentioned twice in the Bible by God himself when he requested things to be made his way.That's two mentions more than in any of my anatomy textbooks.
Oh yes Alia, while the rest of science is still trying to figure things out, you're textbooks have all the answers. Does your textbook tell you how to heal cancer too ? Or is it to be deemed impossible since it's not there ?
Drugs and medicine and surgery help. It's mostly up to the persons immune system to heal from serious aliments.
Phi has its place in mathematics and aesthetics. The Golden Ratio's significance and incidence in nature are massively overrated by the superstitious and ignorant.
Disprove the Universal Wavefunction then. It's behaviour is based on Phi. It rules everything by function and design and the outcomes shown are as real as the evidence you ignore.
What I call forward results, is a matter of not coming from, or returning to nothing. Something does not come from nothing. Science knows and teaches this. We are something, the consciousness is something. Without awareness there cannot be conscious art, and the most profound conscious art imatates life, which by all means is far more complex than conscious art.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. I'm sure you believe this. From my perspective, energy is timeless, as it came from a place that is timeless. All matter in this universe did not come from here. It could have been given or loaned from a place where time does not exist.
We can try and try again countless times, and we will not even beging to get something from nothing.
You're faced with the exact same issues when you claim the existence of a designer. By this logic, the designer would require a designer also.
The designer is from a place where time does not exist. The laws there are probably his own too, and it boggles the mind. To make it simple. In a place where time does not exist, the creator would have no begining, as the creator has no end. Energy, has no begining, and no end, as you have been told, it is neither created or destoryed. What we have here is not originlally from this universe, if in fact, there was nothing.
Surely it's up there with all that quantum shit we can't figure out, as we settle for, "that's just the way it is".
Your entire argument isn't based on logic, but on faith. Deal with it.
I think what you brought to the table is a greater expression of faith. They can say the eye formed like that, without a consciousness. That is still retarded, and no one is saying how can it do that, just, "this is what happend" which still lacks explination on the force that drove the design.
I believe in the values I see on my own accord. I believe the inanimate will never prouduce. I agree with the scientists that disprove evolution. What sets those guys apart from the guys who wrote the books ? The guys who wrote the books have status, while their claims are theory, and often we see them argued by the faithful. (Seriously, you have faith in them.)
“The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before we can find them in things.â€
–Einstein, Albert
The way.
by EdvardI don't know about you. But if I was exploring unmarked terrain and I saw that. I would know some type of consciousness did that. More likely it was big foot as opposed to some natural occurrance.
Rocks are but a material available to us. Without consciousness, the stars and planets would have no purpose, but behold, they are of great service to us.
What's the purpose of stars and planets that are really fucking far away (or have been) and don't/won't have anything to do with us?
To support life and provide structure to the universe.
by Inquirerby Spatial MindThe thing about all living creatures including us, is we all have Golden proportions that make our structure. On a side note, the Golden ratio has been mentioned twice in the Bible by God himself when he requested things to be made his way. Just a thought, we can sweep that back under the rug, while we speculate how all things in nature contain the Golden ratio one way or another, and that it is also a universal law for physics.
We've already been through this; is the fixed speed of light also evidence for a conscious design?
Is lights fixed speed evidence for a conscious design. Good question.
If light never had a fixed speed, then it wouldn't provide our consciousness with a useful tool for measuring far off distances. At the very least, lights fixed speed might be taken for granted. In a universe where time violation exists, let's be grateful we can see the light 13 billion or so lightyears away from here. Then we can do our math.
Well I never said it was impossible. Though I would say it's unlikely. Conditions do apply.
I don't know about you. But if I was exploring unmarked terrain and I saw that. I would know some type of consciousness did that. More likely it was big foot as opposed to some natural occurrance.
Rocks are but a material available to us. Without consciousness, the stars and planets would have no purpose, but behold, they are of great service to us.
Don't you get my argument? You are making a subjective judgement based on your own humanly flawed perspective when you say that stacked rocks are the result of a consciousness. You know that through experience living on this planet and that is hardly enough data to make a claim of intelligent design on a universal scale. You'd need experience from a multitude of universes for that.
I know what your saying, and like before, if the rocks are to pile up or stack without the intervention of a conscious being, again, conditions would apply, not saying it's impossible, though it would not happen all that well if the rocks fell from a cliff. They would bounce and break or shatter, not enough to qualify for a stack though some debree may end up on another. Not like we would do it, unless we wanted to make it so.
The thing is, when we actually see stacked rocks, it was one who has consciousness that actually did it, when I google this, I can't help but to think every example I see was done by someone.
And why wouldn't stars and planets have purpose without us? Or rather, what purpose (from the universe's point of view) do they have now?
Might you be suggesting the Universe has a point of view that matters while it is unconscious ? Or say the universe has an opinion that matters ?
A stars purpose is to provide light and energy. Without it, it would just be pitch black out there. The planets have resources. When we are proper, and free of all the bulshit we do to one another, we'll find that we advance faster, going out there will become easier, and we'll find that we are fortunate that have so much space. Without us or other inhabitants in the universe, a star can still be a star and do what it does, but it'll have no reason for being as it is.
What I call forward results, is a matter of not coming from, or returning to nothing. Something does not come from nothing. Science knows and teaches this. We are something, the consciousness is something. Without awareness there cannot be conscious art, and the most profound conscious art imatates life, which by all means is far more complex than conscious art.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. I'm sure you believe this. From my perspective, energy is timeless, as it came from a place that is timeless. All matter in this universe did not come from here. It could have been given or loaned from a place where time does not exist.
We can try and try again countless times, and we will not even beging to get something from nothing. There is intelligence in us, and intelligence surrounding us, we have yet to match. Our machines do not have free will, and do not make things beyond our imagination, whatever we have the machine do, it's the consciousness behind the tool.
Firstly, you don't know that we'll never be able to create an intelligent and conscious AI. Secondly, as I said before, you are limited by your own imagination and perspective. What you deem as complex might be simple from another point of view, and what you think is simple could be complex. Things just are.
I said we've yet to do better, I never said wheather or not we ever will match or out do the works we see in nature, and if we do, it will be done with materials provided to us from nature itself.
Secondly, I'm aware that I am somewhere along the line of complexity, however, an inamate object not being able to produce results is something I have learned. A rock won't get any smarter because the rock is bigger than I can measure, now don't be shocked, but I just know it, don't ask me how I know, I just do.
However, if you are talking about the scientific meaning of complexity both the Specified complexity argument and the Irreducible complexity argument has been sufficiently disproved in my eyes.
And where energy comes from I don't know. Perhaps it is timeless, but that doesn't really matter to this discussion.
Of course it matters. Energy is timeless, eternal exists, the universe containing all this is not timeless, and it is thought to collapse. The prime creator, God, is said to be eternal, long before we measured the invincibility of energy. It has been said God is the creator of all things in the universe. Science knows, the energy of space in all of the universe is absolute zero. Before time there was nothing. But now, we have something.
Something does not come from nothing, it never has.
Of course it matters. Energy is timeless, eternal exists, the
universe containing all this is not timeless, and it is thought to
collapse. The prime creator, God, is said to be eternal, long before we
measured the invincibility of energy.
Look dude, I appreciate the effort to make this rational, but it's not. Why do you think that timeless energy could not exist without God? Why would the timeless energy of our Universe (that is interchangeble with mass because of what Einstein dude said) need a creator but God not?
If there was a rational logical way to prove the existence of God we wouldn't be having this debate right now, because smarter ppl than us would have already settled the matter.